Skip to main content

Full text of "Grammar of New Testament Greek"

See other formats





FEIEDEICH BLASS, DkPhil., D.Th., Hon. Litt.D. Dublin 







First Edition, 1898. 
Second Edition, 1905. 




Professor Blass's Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Griechisch 
appeared in Germany in October, 1896. The present translation 
reproduces the whole work with the exception of the Preface, 
which the author considered unsuitable to the English edition, 
on account of the somewhat personal character given to it by 
the dedication which he had combined with it. Some points of 
the Preface, however, are of sufficient general interest to be repro- 
duced here in a summary form. 

The author maintains that whereas Hellenistic Greek cannot 
in comparison with Attic Greek be regarded as a very rich 
language, it is for all that (except where borrowed literary words 
and phrases intrude themselves) a pure language, which is 
governed by regular laws of its own. He applies to it the 
proverb Ttov kol\(dv kolI to fxeroTTdipov koXov. 

The present work does not profess to give the elements of 
Greek grammar, but presupposes some knowledge on the part 
of the reader. Those who desire to read the Greek Testament 
after a two months' study of the Greek language are referred to 
such works as Huddilston's Essentials of New Testament Greek. 

With regard to textual criticism, a distinguishing feature in the 
grammar is that whereas earlier grammarians quote the editions 
of the leading N.T. critics, Professor Blass quotes the mss., 
leaving the reader to draw his own conclusions as to the true 
text in each instance. Whilst admitting that we have now 
reached something like a new "Textus Keceptus" based on the 
oldest Greek tradition, and acknowledging the services rendered 
to N.T. criticism by such critics as Lachmann, Tischendorf, Westcott 
and Hort, and Tregelles, he has to confess that a definite conclusion 
on this subject has not yet been arrived at. 

The only point in reference to matters of ' higher criticism ' to 
which attention has to be called is that the John who wrote the 


Apocalypse is distinguished from John the author of the Gospel 
and Epistles. The first and second Epistles of Peter do not 
present sufficiently well-marked differences to require a distinction 
to be drawn between them in a grammar of this kind. The 
Pauline Epistles are all quoted as the work of St. Paul ; the Epistle 
to the Hebrews is naturally not so quoted. The general position 
taken up by Professor Blass with regard to questions of authorship 
is shown by the following words : ' The tradition which has been 
transmitted to us as to the names of the authors of the N.T. books, 
in so far as it is unanimous, I hold to be approximately con- 
temporary with those authors ; that is to say, the approximation 
is as close as we can at present look for; and, without claiming 
to be a prophet, one may assert that, to whatever nearer approxim- 
ation -we may be brought by fortunate discoveries in the future, 
Luke will remain Luke, and Mark will continue to be Mark.' 

The books to which the author expresses his obligations are the 
grammars of Winer (including the new edition of P. Schmiedel) and 
Buttmann, Jos. Yiteau, Etude sur le Grec du N.T., Paris, 1893, and 
Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in N.T. Greek, Chicago, 
1893. The first-named of these works having grown to such 
voluminous proportions, the present grammar, written in a smaller 
compass, may, the author hopes, find a place beside it for such 
persons as maintain the opinion fxeya /3l/3Xlov fjLeya k(xkov. 

The isolation of the N.T. from other contemporary or nearly 
contemporary writings is a hindrance to the proper understanding 
of it, and should by all means be avoided ; illustrations are there- 
fore drawn by the writer from the Epistle of Barnabas, the 
Shepherd of Hermas, the first and the so-called second Epistle of 
Clement, and the Clementine Homilies. 

The translator ha^ merely to add that the references have been 

to a great extent verified by him, and that the proofs have all 

passed through the hands of Professor Blass, who has introduced 

several additions and corrections which are not contained in the 

original German edition. He has also to express his thanks to 

the Rev. A. E. Brooke, Fellow of King's College, Cambridge, for 

kindly looking over the greater part of the translation in MS. and 

removing some of its imperfections, and to two of his own sisters 

for welcome assistance in the work of transposing the third of the 

Indices to suit the new pagination. 

H. St. J. T. 

May 13, 1898. 


In the present edition the various minor alterations and additions 
introduced by the author into the second G-erman edition 
(Gottingen, 1892) have been incorporated. Owing to the plates 
of the first English edition having been stereotyped, it has been 
found necessary to adhere, except at the end of the volume, to 
the original pagination. The bulk of the author's additions have 
consequently been collected into two appendices. This unavoid- 
able arrangement may, it is feared, be a little inconvenient to 
the reader: the references at the foot of the pages, however, 
indicate in each case where the additional matter is to be found. 
The indices have been corrected and considerably enlarged. 

H. St. J. T. 

April 1, 1905. 




§ 1. Introduction, -------- 1 

§ 2. Elements of the New Testament language, ... 2 

§ 3. Orthography, -------- 6 

§ 4. Division of words, accents, breathings, punctuation, - - 13 

§ 5. Elision, crasis, variable final consonants, - - - - 18 

§ 6. Sporadic sound-changes, ------ 20 

§ 7. First and second declensions, ----- 25 

§8. Third declension, - 26 

§9. Metaplasmus, ------- 28 

§ 10. Proper names. Indeclinable nouns, - - - - 29 

§ 11. Adjectives, -------- 32 

§ 12. Numerals, -------- 35 

§ 13. Pronouns, -------- 35 

§ 14. System of conjugation, ------ 36 

§ 15. Augment and reduplication, ------ 37 

§ 16. Verbs in -w. Tense formation, - - - - - 40 

§ 17. Verbs in -w. New formation of a present tense, - - 40 

§ 18. Verbs in -w. On the formation of the future, - - - 41 

§ 19. Verbs in -<a. First and second aorist, - - - - 43 

§ 20. Verbs in -w. Aorist and future of deponent verbs, - - 44 

§ 21. Verbs in -w. Terminations, - - - - - 45 

§22. Contract verbs, __...-- 47 

§ 23. Verbs in -/u 9 -------- 48 

§ 24. Table of noteworthy verbs, ------ 52 

§ 25. Adverbs, 58 

§26. Particles, -------- 60 

§ 27. Word-formation by means of terminations and suffixes, - - 61 

§ 28. Word-formation by composition, ----- 65 

§ 29. Proper names, .-.-*... 70 






} 30. Subject and predicate, 72 

} 31. Agreement, ------- 76 


§ 32. Gender and number, ------ 82 

§ 33. The cases. Nominative and vocative, - - - - 84 

§ 34. The accusative, - ... - - - - 87 

§35. The genitive, ------- 95 

§ 36. Continuation : genitive with verbs, etc. , - - - 100 

§37. Dative, - 109 

§ 38. Continuation : instrumental and temporal dative, - - - 116 

§ 39. The cases with prepositions. Prepositions with the accusative, - 121 

§ 40. Prepositions with the genitive, ----- 124 

§ 41. Prepositions with the dative, - 130 

§ 42. Prepositions with two cases, - 132 

§ 43. Prepositions with three cases, - - - - - 136 

§ 44. Syntax of the adjective, ------ 140 

§ 45. Numerals, -------- 144 

§ 46. The article. I. 6, ?), t6 as pronoun ; the article with independent 

substantives, - - - - - - - 145 

§ 47. The article. II. The article with adjectives etc. ; the article 

with connected parts of speech, - - - - 154 


§ 48. Personal, reflexive, and possessive pronouns, - - 164 

§ 49. Demonstrative pronouns, - - - - - - 170 

§ 50. Relative and interrogative pronouns, - - - - 172 

§ 51. Indefinite pronouns ; pronominal words, - 177 


§52. The voices of the verb, ------ 180 

§ 53. Active voice, -------- 181 

§ 54. Passive voice, - - - - - - 184 

§55. Middle voice, - - - - - - - 185 

§ 56. The tenses. Present tense, - - - - - - 187 

§ 57. Imperfect and aorist indicative, - 190 

§ 58. Moods of the present and the aorist, •• - - - 194 



§59. The perfect, -------- 198 

§60. Pluperfect, - - 201 

§61. Future, - 201 

§ 62. Periphrastic conjugation, -....-- 202 

§ 63. The moods. Indicative of unreality (and repetition), - - 205 

§ 64. Conjunctive and future (or present) indicative in principal clauses, 208 
§ 65. Conjunctive and future (or present) indicative in subordinate 

clauses, - - - - - - - - 211 

§ 66. Remains of the optative, - - - - - - 219 

§ 67. Imperative, -------- 221 

§68. Infinitive, -------- 221 

§ 69. Infinitive and periphrasis with tva, ----- 222 

§ 70. Infinitive and periphrasis with on, - - - - - 230 

§ 71. Infinitive with the article, ------ 233 

§ 72. Cases with the infinitive. Nominative and accusative with the 

infinitive, -------- 237 

§ 73. Participle. (I.) Participle as attribute — representing a substantive 

— as predicate, ------- 242: 

§ 74. Participle. (II.) As an additional clause in the sentence, - 247 

§ 75. The negatives, ------- 253 

§76. Other adverbs, ---..--- 257 

§ 77. Particles (conjunctions), -..---- 259 

§ 78. Particles (continued),- - - - - - - 270 

§ 79. Connection of sentences, ------ 275 

§ 80. Position of words (position of clauses), .... - 287 

§ 81. Ellipse (Braehylogy), pleonasm, ----- 291 

§ 82. Arrangement of words ; figures of speech, - 295 


Appendix to Text, -------- 306 

Appendix to Notes, ___...- 327 


I. Index of subjects, ------- 334 

II. Index of Greek words, ------ 342 

III. Index of New Testament passages, ----- 362' 

P. 180, line 2. For L. 4. 3 read L. 4. 43. 



1. The special study of the grammar of New Testament Greek 
has been for the most part prpmpted by purely practical needs. In 
Greek literature as such the writings brought together in the New 
Testament can claim but a very modest position ; and the general 
grammar of the Greek language can take but very limited notice of 
the special features which they present. Yet, on the other hand, 
their contents give them so paramount an importance, that in order 
to understand them fully, and to restore them to their primitive 
form, the most exact investigation even of their grammatical peculi- 
arities becomes an absolute necessity. 

The New Testament writers represent in general that portion of 
the population of the Hellenised East, which, while it employed 
Greek more or less fluently as the language of intercourse and 
commerce — side by side with the native languages which were by no 
means superseded — yet remained unfamiliar with the real Hellenic 
culture and the literature of classical Greek. Luke, whose Hellenic 
culture is unquestionable, forms an exception. But how far, in this 
respect, exceptions are also to be admitted in the case of Paul and 
ihe author of the epistle to the Hebrews (Barnabas), it is not, especi- 
ally in the case of the first-named writer, easy to decide : at any rate 
;he traces of classical culture in all three writers are next to nothing, 
whereas in the next generation a Clement of Rome, with his ywauccs 
Wat&rs teal AipKat and his story of the phoenix, 1 at once displays an en- 
irely different character. Accordingly, the language employed in the 
ST.T. is, on the whole, such as was spoken in the lower circles of society, 
lot such as was written in works of literature. But between these two 
brms of speech there existed even at that time a very considerable 
lifterence. The literary language had always remained dependent in 
ome measure on the old classical masterpieces; and though in the 
irst centuries of Hellenistic influence it had followed the develop- 
aent of the living language, and so had parted some distance from 
hose models, yet since the first century before Christ it had kept 
truggling back to them again with an ever-increasing determination, 

1 Clean, ad Corinth, vi. 2 : xxv. 
<£ A 

2 INTRODUCTION. [§ i. 1-2, § 2. 1. 

If, then, the literature of the Alexandrian period must be called 
Hellenistic, that of the Eoman period must be termed Atticistic. 
But the popular language had gone its own way, and continued to 
do so until out of ancient Greek there was gradually developed 
modern Greek, which, however, in its literature — its prose literature 
in particular — is still very strongly affected by classic influences. 
The N.T. then shows us an intermediate stage on the road between 
ancient and modern Greek; on this ground, too, its language is 
deserving of a special treatment. 

2. It is indeed true that for a knowledge of the popular language 
of the first century after Christ, as of the immediately preceding and 
succeeding periods, the N.T. is by no means our only source. In 
the way of literature not much is to be added, certainly nothing 
which can diminish the supreme importance of the N.T. Un- 
doubtedly the Greek translations of the Old Testament show a great 
affinity of language, but they are translations, and slavishly literal 
translations ; no one ever spoke so, not even the Jewish translators. 
Of profane literature, one might perhaps quote the discourses of 
Epictetus contained in Arrian's commentary as the work most avail- 
able for our purpose. But, alongside of its use in literature, the 
spoken language is found — found, too, in its various gradations, 
corresponding naturally to the position and education of the speaker 
— in those private^ records, the number and importance of which 
is being perpetually increased by fresh discoveries in Egypt. The 
language of the N.T. may, therefore, be quite rightly treated in 
close connection with these. A grammar of the popular language 
of the period, written on the basis of all these various authori- 
ties and remains, would be, from the grammarian's point of view, 
more satisfactory than one which was limited to the language of the 
New Testament. 1 The practical considerations, however, from which 
we sot out, will be constantly imposing such a limitation; for it 
cannot b3 of the same importance to us to know what some chance 
Egyptian writes in a letter or deed of sale, as it is to know what the 
men of the N.T. have written, however true it may be that in their 
own day the cultured world drew no distinction between these last 
and the lower classes of Egyptians and Syrians, and despised them 
both alike. 


1. By far the most predominant element in the language of the 
New Testament is the Greek of common speech which was dis- 
seminated in the East by the Macedonian conquest, in the form 
which it had gradually assumed under the wider development of 
several centuries. This common speech is in the main a somewhat 
modified Attic, in which were omitted such Attic peculiarities as ap- 
peared too strange to the bulk of the remaining Greeks, and thus 
were at an earlier time not adopted in the language of Tragedy, such 
as tt instead of cro* in OdXarra etc., and pp instead of par in apprjv 

1 Hf. G. A. Deissmann, Bibelstudien (Marburg, 1895), p. 57 ff. 


etc. As a matter of course it is the later Attic, not the older, 
which lies at the base of it, which explains, to take one example, 
the absence of any trace of a dual in this language. But as the 
development extended, the remaining distinctions in the language 
between duality and plurality were also set aside : not only is 
7t6t€oos abandoned for rts, l/carepos for e/ccurros, and so on, but 
above all the superlative is abandoned for the comparative: and 
this is a state of things which we find in the language of the 
N.T., but by no means in the literary language of a contemporary 
and later date, which affords no traces of these peculiarities. With 
this is connected the more limited use of the optative, and many 
other usages, to be discussed in their place. Another not very con- 
siderable portion of the alterations concerns the phonetic forms 
of declension and conjugation, under which may be classed the 
extension of the inflexion -a, gen. -??s to words in -pa, and the trans- 
ference of 1st aorist terminations to the 2nd aorist. A third and 
much larger class embraces the uses and combinations of forms and 
"form- words," in which a similar striving after simplification is 
unmistakable. Very many usages disappear; the use of the 
infinitive as the complement of the verb is extended at the ex- 
pense of that of the participle, the objective accusative at the 
expense of the genitive and dative; the rules concerning ov or 
fxrj are as simple as they are intricate for the classical languages. 
Of quite another order, and concealed by the orthography, which 
remained the same, are the general changes in the sounds of the 
language, which even at that time had been carried out in no 
small measure, though they were still far from attaining their 
later and modern dimensions. A last class is composed of 
changes in lexicology — for the most part the substitution of a 
new expression in place of the usual expression for a thing or an 
idea, or the approach to such a substitution, the new appearing 
side by side with the old as its equivalent. This, however, does 
not as a rule come within the province of grammar, unless the 
expression be a kind of " form- word," for instance a preposition, or 
an irregular verb, an instance of this being the present of €ioW, 
which in general is no longer 6/oco, but pXkrria or Otoypw. The 
Hellenistic language as a whole is in its way not less subject to 
rules nor less systematic than Attic; but it has certainly not 
received such a literary cultivation as the latter, because the con- 
tinuous development of culture never allowed it completely to 
break away from the older form, which was so exclusively regarded 
as the standard of what the language should be. 1 

1 Since the Koivq had such a wide diffusion, from Italy and Gaul to Egypt and 
Syria, it is a priori impossible that it should have been everywhere entirely 
uniform, and so it is correct to speak also of an Alexandrian dialect (ij 'A\e£ai>- 
dpdwv 5tdXe/cros) as a special form of it (W.-Schm. § 3, 1, note 4). Of course we 
are not in a position to make many distinctions in details in this respect. This 
is apparent even in the attempt made by Thumb, d. griech. Spr. im Zeitalter 
des Hellenismus, pp. 162-201. Yet even in the N.T. writers certain differences 
are well-marked, which have nothing to do with a more or less cultivated 
style, e.g. some writers, and Luke in particular, confuse els and ip, whereas the 
author of the Apocalypse is able to distinguish between these prepositions. 


2. One element of the popular languages of that time, and there- 
fore of the New Testament language, which though not prominent 
is clearly traceable, is the Latin element. The ruling people of 
Italy intermingled with the population of all the provinces ; Roman 
proper names were widely circulated (as the N.T. at once clearly 
shows in the names of its authors and the persons addressed) ; but 
appellatives (ko-uotuSio., Srjv&piov, a-ov8dpiov 9 l Kevrvpitnv) also founcf act- 
mission, and some phrases, particularly of commercial and legal life, 

► were literally translated (as rb iicavbv Trotetv, Xafifldveiv^satisfacere, 
satis accipere). In general, however, this influence remains confined 
to lexicology and phraseology; in a slight degree it affects the forma- 
tion of words ('Hpip&iavoi, XpYio-r-iavoi, ^tA,t5nr^(rtot=Philippe(n)ses 2 ), 
in perhaps a greater degree the syntax (tKeXtvo-ev avrbv curaxtfqvat = 
dud eum iussit), still it is difficult here to determine what is due to 
native development of the language and what to foreign influence. 

3. The national Hebrew or Aramaic element influenced Greek- 
writing Jews in a threefold manner. In the first place it is 
probable that the speaker or writer quite involuntarily and uncon- 
sciously rendered a phrase from his mother tongue by an accurately 
corresponding phrase ; again, that the reading and hearing of the 
Old Testament- in the Greek version coloured the writer's style, 
especially if he desired to write in a solemn and dignified manner 
(just as profane writers borrowed phrases from the Attic writers 
for a similar/ object) ; third and last, a great part of the N.T. 
writings (the three first Gospels and the first half of the Acts) is 
in all probability a direct working over of Hebrew or Aramaic 
materials. This was not a translation like that executed by the 
LXX., rendered word for word with the utmost fidelity, and almost 
without any regard to intelligibility; but it was convenient to 
adhere to the originals even in expression instead of looking for 
a form of expression which was good Greek. The Hebraisms and 
Aramaisms are, then, for the most part of a lexical kind, i.e. they 
consist in the meaning which is attributed to a word (a-Kav8aXov is 

the rendering of STttDM in the ethical sense, hence o-KavSaXtfav), 
or in phrases literally translated (as 7zy>ocra>7rov Xapjidveiv Q^S ^Up3 
'to respect the person/ hence Trooo-coTroA^/jwnnjs -- Xqixxf/ia); these 
expressions, which moreover are not too numerous, must have been 
current in Jewish, and subsequently in Christian, communities. 
In the department of grammar the influence of Hebrew is seen 
especially in a series of peculiarities in the use of prepositions, 
consisting partly of circumlocutions such as dpea-Kctv kv&inov twos 
instead of twi, irpb irpoo-wTrov rrjs ctcroSov avrov, 'before him,' partly 
in an extended use of certain prepositions such as iv (Zm) on the 

Again Hennas, undoubtedly a representative of the unadulterated kolpt/j, uses 
often enough the superlative forms in -raros and -iotos in elative sense, whereas 
the forms in -raros are almost entirely absent from the writers of the N.T., and 
even those in -icrros are only very seldom found (see § 11, 3). Such cases must, 
then, go back to local differences within the koivt?!, even if we can no longer 
rightly assign the range of circulation of individual peculiarities. 
1 2 v. App. p. 327. 


analogy of the corresponding Hebrew word (?) ; much is also taken 
over in the use of the article and the pronouns ; to which must be 
added the periphrasis for the simple tense by means of ty etc. 
with the participle, beside other examples. 

4. The literary language has also furnished its contribution to 
the language of the N.T., if only in the case of a few more cultured 
writers, especially Luke, Paul, and the author of the Epistle to the 
Hebrews. 1 A very large number of good classical constructions are 
indeed found in the N.T., but confined to these particular writers, 
just as it is only they who occasionally employ a series of words 
which belonged to the language of literary culture and not to 
colloquial speech. Persons of some culture had these words and 
constructions at their disposal when they required them, and would 
even employ the correct forms of words as alternatives to the vulgar 
forms of ordinary use. This is shown most distinctly by the speech 
of Paul before Agrippa (Acts xxvi.), which we may safely regard as 
reported with comparative accuracy. On this occasion, when Paul 
had a more distinguished audience than he ever had before, he 
makes use not only of pure Greek proverbs and modes of speech 
(717)05 Ktvrpov XaKTifJEiv 14, ovk 'icrriv kv ywvia. ireirpayjievov tovto 26), 
but there also appears here — setting aside the Epistle of Jude 2 — 
the only superlative in -raros in the whole N.T. (rfjv dKpi^ea-Tdrrjv 
alpeo-iv 5), and here only h-acriv for 'they know' (4), not oUkurw ; he 
must therefore have learnt somewhere (?at school), that in order to 
speak correct Attic Greek one must conjugate urpxv wrre urao-tv. The 
writer of the Ep. to the Hebrews also once (12. 17) uses urre for 
<ye know,' although the Vulgate rendering is scitote (the imperative 
never had any other form). But in another place he has oZSafxev and 
not Lo-fxev (10. 30) ; therefore his employment of urre is not due to 
Atticism, but apparently to regard for rhythm (cp. § 82, 3). 3 For the 
culture of this writer was of a rhetorical nature, the reflex, in fact, of 
the rhetoric and oratory of the time. Luke's culture, on the other 
hand, was grammatical, and to that extent Atticistic or classical 5 
hence he occasionally reproduces the old and classical forms. It is 
noteworthy that in the artificial reproduction of the ancient language 
the same phenomenon repeated itself to a certain degree, which had 
long before occurred in the reproduction of Homeric language by 
subsequent poets: namely, that the imitator sometimes misunder- 
stood, and accordingly misused, a phrase. Just as Archilochus on the 
strength of the Homeric line : tZkvov ijxov^ yeverj p.ev vreprepos ea-nv 
'AxiAAcife, Trpc<rfBvT€po<s 8k crv Icro-t (H. xi. 786, Menoetius to Patroclus) 
employed w€/>repos = j/€<ot€/oos (a sense which it never bore) 4 : so in 
all probability Luke (with or without precedent) used ftcra rrjv afagiv 
fwv in A. 20. 29 as equivalent to 'after my departure/ because he 
had misunderstood p.era rrjv airtgiv (correctly 'arrival') rrjs ywaiKos 
in Herodotus, 9, 77. The same writer has dirfeo-av, l^co-av (from the 
obsolete airtifii, tgeifii) with the force of the aorist, eKeto-c, 6/jtoo-c, in 
answer to the question Where % and many other instances. 

1 2 3 4 v. App. p. 327. 

6 ORTHOGRAPHY. [§ 3. 1. 


1. One portion of the changes in the Greek language that have 
been alluded to (§ 2, 1) concerned generally the sounds and com- 
binations of these; but in general alterations of this kind it is 
usual for the spelling not to imitate the new sound off-hand, and 
certainly not without hesitation, in the case of a word which already 
had a stereotyped and ordinary spelling. So, in Greek, in the 
time 'of the composition of the N.T., there was, as we know from 
manifold evidence of stone and papyrus, no one fixed orthography in 
existence, but writers fluctuated between the old historical spelling 
and a new phonetic manner of writing. The sound-changes, 
at that time not nearly so great as they afterwards became, had 
principally to do with the so-called 1 adscript in the diphthongs 
#> Vi *? (strictly cu, 171, au with i pronounced), which, since about the 
second century before Christ, had become mute, and with the old 
diphthong «, which from about the same period ceased to be 
distinguished from long t. But the writing of AI, HI, 121, EI did 
not on that account become obsolete, preserved as they were by 
their occurrence in all ancient books and literal transcripts of them ; 
only it was no longer known in which cases a, e, o should be 
furnished with the symbol for 1 mute, and in which cases long i 
should be written a$ EI. Many persons took the drastic measure 
of omitting the « mite in all cases, even in the dative, as Strabo 1 
attests, in the same way that we also find I as the prevailing spelling 
for l (though still not without exceptions) in manuscripts of the 
period 2 ; others considered that in EI as against I they had a 
convenient means of distinguishing between % and f, in the same 
way that e and £, 6 and 6 were distinguished. So Kivets is sometimes 
kinic, sometimes KeiNeic; and even kginic would be frequently 
written by any ordinary scribe. It was not until a later date that 
the historical method of writing was uniformly carried out, and 
even then not without occasional errors, by learned grammarians, 
especially Herodian of Alexandria, who taught in Kome under 
M. Aurelius. This was in keeping with the prevailing impulse of 
the time, which made for the revival of the old classical language. 
Since then, in spite of increasing difficulties, this method of spelling 
has been continuously taught and inculcated in the schools with the 
help of numerous artificial rules up till the present day. 

2. It is impossible therefore to suppose, after what has been 
stated, that even Luke and Paul could have employed the correct 
historical spelling in the case of 1 mute and «; for at that time 
there was nobody in the schools of Antioch and Tarsus who could 
teach it them, certainly not in the case of «, though some rules 
might be formulated at an earlier period with regard to t mute. 
We are debarred from all knowledge as to how they actually did 

1 Strabo, xiv., p. 648, ttoX\o2 y&p xwpis tov t yp&<pov<ri rets 8otik&$, kolI iKJ3d\\ov<rt> 
tik rb £9os <j>v<ructy alrlav o(ik fyov, 

2 Papyrus MS. of the poems of Hero(n)das, London, 1891. 

§ 3 . 2-4.] ORTHOGRAPHY. 7 

write, and it is a matter of indifference, provided that one realizes 
this state of things, and recognizes that e.g. Agocin stood equally 
well for 8omtlv or Sdxrew. The oldest scribes whose work we possess 
(cent. 4-6) always kept themselves much freer from the influence of 
the schools than the later, i.e. they frequently wrote phonetically or 
according to the rule ct = l (so the scribe of B), and indeed t mute 
finds no place in mss. before the seventh century. In our case there 
can be no question that we should follow the Byzantine school, and 
consistently employ the historical spelling in the N.T., as well as in 
the case of all profane writers, and remove all half measures, such as 
those, for instance, still remaining in Tischendorf and in the Stutt- 
gart N.T., without any regard to the MS. evidence. The recording 
and weighing of evidence of this kind in the case of individual 
words, e.g. words in -eta, -ta, is the most unprofitable of tasks. 

3. The t mute should therefore be supplied, as the correct his- 
torical spelling, in the following words, as well as in the well-known 
cases : fUfJLvrj(TK€iv 9 Svrp-Keiv (for -y)-i(tk€lv), Travraxy, iravrri, eiKrj, 
Kpv4>y, Aa#/oa, ?r€$7, (di/Ti)7T€/oa 1 (old dative forms) ; dOQos, ($ov, 
TrarpQos, virepipov, <£)dv, Tpa)d*s, 'Ho^S^s (for e H/o(oto^5, from ^pus), 
Trpwpa, cnpfeiv (for o-G>-t£€tv). In the case of o-^fetv, it is not yet 
satisfactorily ascertained how far the tenses partook of the t, since 
o-aow interposes itself and supplies lo-wOrjv (for icratoOrjv), <r<i>TY)p etc. ; 
in the active we may write cr<£o-a>, Zo-yo-a, o-arw/ca : in the perf. pass, 
owwcr fxai appears to be correct, like vevofjao-fiat, but o-tortorai (A. 4. 9) 
on the model of eo-wOrjv. It is also doubtful whether an t was ever 
present in the forms first found in Hellenistic Greek, Sarqv, yvwrjv 
(optat.), 7raTpoAc6as, fxrjrpoXcaa^ (Attic Sotyv, yvoirjv, -Aotas) ; but 
since t is essential to the optative, we may insert it in those 
instances. As yet there is not sufficient evidence to decide between 
"Trpaos - tt/d^os, 7rpaoT7)<s — irpyoTrjs. For et in place of y\i vide infra 5. 

4. Ei, for 1 is established in mss. and editions, being found most 
persistently in Semitic words, especially proper names, where it 
would never once be without use as an indication of the length of 
the t, provided only that it be correctly understood to have this 
meaning, and not to represent a diphthong, which is fundamentally 
wrong. We can, if we please, in these cases assist the pronunciation 
by means of the symbol for a long vowel (r) : thus AaviS, 'Ao'St, 
'Axt/A, BeviafiZv, 'EAta/ct/*, 'EAto-a/fer, 2 'Iatpos, Kts, A€vl(s), N€<£0aAt/i, 
2aV<£tpa, 3 Ta/3l6a, Xepovfilv; TedcrrjfiavZf 'IeptY/o 5 ; 17 At, /oa/3y8t, raAt0a, 

1 Certainly in later times the a in (/car)cw>n7repa appears to be short, since it 
is elided in verse, Maneth. iv. 188. 

2 EXeio-. always in B, generally K, occasionally CD, see Tisch; on L. 1. 5. 

3 The mss. (A. 5. 1) vary between «, 1, v: there is no doubt of the identity 
of the name with the Aram, *n»a£ {pulchra), still it has been Grecised (gen. -tjj 
like fi&xupa, •?*}*, §7, 1) no doubt in connection with <r&ir<p(€)ipo$, in which the 
ei is quite unjustifiable (Ap. 21. 19, -ipos BP). 

4 See Kautzsch in W.-Schm. § 5, 13 a (Hebr. *ofr m for D'r). 4 * The spelling 
with 7} at the end as against -«, -t has only the very slenderest attestation ; 
even the 17 of the second syllable must perhaps give way to the a of the western 
tradition (many authorities in Mt. 26. 36 : cp. Mc. 14. 32). 4 *v. App. p. 327. 

5 With et Mt. 20. 29 BCLZ ; so always B, frequently «(D). 

8 ORTHOGRAPHY. [§ 3. 4-6. 

o-afiaxOarf. The proper names in -tas have in most cases t, and 
therefore no et (so, Mapla), but rightly 'HAetas, 'HAtas 

ST?J», 'Iaxm'ag, -<rfas VPTpiP, 'Ofst'os, -fe ?W£ Ofyet'as n^. 1 
'EAto-atos L. 4. 27 3710 vDSj nas undoubtedly t, and is also spelt with 
et in B (only), just as B has <&apeuraioi (Mc. 7. 1, 3, 5, A. 5. 34 
etc.), FaAetAata, -atos (Mc. 1. 14, 16, Jo. 7. 1, A. 5. 37 etc.), Setra 
(Gr. 4. 24 f.), Setwv (E. 9. 33 etc.). 2a/za/)eta follows the analogy of 
'AvT t t,6x€ioi>, 'AXegdvBpeia etc., and must therefore retain et in our 
spelling of it, 2 although the inhabitant is called 'ZapapiTTjs, as the 
inhabitant of Mapwveta is M.apo)vtrr]s. 

5. With regard to Greek words and names, the following must be 
noted for the correct discrimination between et and t : oiKTipu, not 
-€i'p(a (cp. oiKTipfios, -Ipfuov, which in B certainly also have et § 4, 2). 
'I/covtov, not Et/c. (t according to Etym. M. sub verbo, which, however, 
does not agree with the coins, which give 1 and et; the mss. in 
A. 13, 51, 14. 1 also read t). /*etyw/u, e/*€t£a etc., /iety/xa. Ttvw, 
T€«ro>, €T€«ra. <£tAovt/cos, -viKia (from WK77). iravotK€i A. 16. 34 
(«AB 1 C), irainrX'qOd I* 23. 1 8, see § 28, 7. There is considerable 
fluctuation in the language from the earliest times between -eta 
(proparoxyt.) and -ta; KaKoiradla Ja. 5. 10 (WP) is the form 
attested also for Attic Greek; w<£eAeta, however (B. 3. 1, Jude i6) r 
already existed in Attic beside <5<£e Aeta. Aoyia i a collection ' 1 C. 
16. if. is, as Deissminn has shown from the papyri, radically wrong, 
and should be Aoyeta, from the verb Aoyeva>, the existence of which 
we have also learnt from the papyri. 3 The spelling or/oaretas (B) 
2 C. 10. 4 cannot be invalidated on the ground that in Attic 
crrpaTtia 'campaign' and crrpaTtd 'army' are interchanged, and 
the one form stands for the other; arapxia 'province' A. 25. 1 
has for a variant in the MSS. not iirapx^a but r) ardpx^ios. 
(A, cp. k 1 ), but inscriptional evidence now proves -eta to be 
the correct form. 4 Et is produced from tjl according to the later 
Attic usage (which converted every t\i into et) in the words- 
Aetrovpyos, -ta, -zlv (orig. A^i-V., then A#t.), which were taken 
over from Attic, and in /JouAet (L. 22. 42, the literary word 
= the colloquial 0eAets § 21, 7), whereas, in other cases y in 
roots and in terminations (dat. 1st. decl., conjunct., 2 sing. pa3S.) 
remained as e, and the use of the future for aor. conj. (§ 65, 2, 5} 
can on no account be explained by this Attic intermixture of the 

6. H in the language of the N.T., and also in the standard mss., 
is in general far from being interchanged with t. Xprjcmavoi (and 
Xprja-Tos) rests on a popular interpretation of the word, for in place 
of the unintelligible Xplo-ros the heathen (from whom the designation 
of the new sect as Xp-qa-r. proceeded) substituted the familiar 
Xprjo-Tos, which had a similar sound ; the spelling of the word with 
t] (in the N.T. preserved in every passage by k 1 A. 11. 26, 26. 28. 
1 P. 4. 1 6) was not completely rejected even by the Christians, and 
1 2 3 4 v. App. p. 327- 

§ 3- 6-8.] ORTHOGRAPHY. 9 

maintained its position for a very long time. 1 Kv/mJvios for 
Quirinius L. 2. 2 may be explained in a similar way (by a connec- 
tion of it with Kvprjvrj), but B and the Latin mss. have Kvp(€)ivoi> 
Cyrino. 2 In L. 14. 13, 21 avdirtipos for dvdirijpos is attested by 
quite preponderating evidence (kABD al.), and is moreover men- 
tioned by Phrynichus 3 the Atticist as a vulgar form." el ^v for ^ 
fxrjv H. 6. 14 (kABD 1 ) is attested also in the LXX. and in papyri 4 ; 
besides, all this class of variations belongs strictly to the province of 
correct pronunciation [orthoepy], and not to that of orthography. 
It is the same with the doubtful yvp.vrJTrjs or yv/jLvirrjs (yvfzviTevop.ev 
1 C. 4. 11, with 7) L al., which, according to Dindorf in Steph. Thes., 
is the correct spelling), and ctliuklvOlov semicindium A. 19. 12 (all 
mss.), with which one might compare the comparatively early occur- 
rence of Stvdpia denarii 5 (N.T., however, always has Srjv.). All 
uncials have <ripLKov se?icum 6 Ap. 18. 12. The distinction made 
between /ca/z^Aos 'camel' and Kdp,i\os 'rope' (Mt. 19. 24 etc., 
Suidas), appears to be a later artificiality. 

7. At a much earlier time than the interchange of 17 - 1 begins that 
of at ~ € (-q), appearing in passive verbal terminations already in the 
Hellenistic period, in the middle of a word before a vowel (and 
soon after universally) in the first and second centuries a.d., so 
that little confidence can be placed in our mss. as a whole in this 
respect, though the oldest (D perhaps excepted) are still far more 
correct in this than in the case of et - 1. The question, therefore, 
whether, in obedience to these witnesses, Kcpm is to be written for 
Kepata, Zgtyvrjs and the like, should not be raised ; the following 
may be specially noticed : KlXapXrai A. 2. 9 (B correctly) 7 ; dvdyawv 
Mc. 14. 15, L. 22. 12 (on quite overwhelming evidence); paiSrj 
raeda Ap. 18. 13 (all uncials p&rj) ; <f>ai\6vr]$ jpaenula (the Greek 
form: strictly it should be <j>aiv6\7js) 2 Tim. 4. 13 (€ all unciala 
except L) ; but crvKO^iopka (A al. -cua) L. 19. 4 (from crvKOfiopov, 
formation like p^Xka from pJqXjov). 

8. The diphthong vi is already from early times limited to the 
case where it is followed by another vowel, and even then it is 
contracted in Attic Greek from the fifth century onwards into v^ 
it reappears, however, in Hellenistic Greek, being frequently indeed 

1 See Hermes xxx. 465 ff. 

2 Cp. Dittenberger, Herm. vi. 149. In Joseph, also the majority of the mss- 
have .yvios : to which add Ma/wcos Kvpfyios C. I. A. iii. 599. 

3 Phryn. in Bk. Anecd. i. 9, 22, dvainjpia did rod t\ ri)v irpdyrfy, 06 Stot rijs et 
di<f>d6yyov 9 ws oi dfiadeh (Tisch. ad loc. ). 
4 Blass, Ausspr. d. Gr. 33 3 , 77 (Aegypt. Urk. des Berl. Mus. 543). 

5 Ibid. 37, 94. 

6 Cp. (W.-Schm. § 5, 14) Gipucoiroubs (so for -6s) Neapolitan inscription, Inscr. 
Gr. I& et Sic. 785, to which sirirarium and holosiricum are given as parallel 
forms in Latin Inscr. (Mommsen). 

7 From AiXdfi rby; see Euseb. Onomast. ed. Larsow-Parthey, p. 22. Yet 
according to Konneke (vide infra 13) the LXX. have AiXdfA and 'EXafJurai side- 
by side. » v . App# p# 3 06< 


ORTHOGRAPHY. [§ 3. 8-10. 

written (in inscriptions and papyri) vei, Le. ii-i, whereas on the other 
hand the inflexion -via, -virjs (§ 7, 1) seems to imply that the 1 is not 
pronounced. The uncial MSS. of the KT. write it throughout ; it 
sometimes occurs in the word-division in B that the first scribe 
divides v\iov l ; A has occasionally what comes to the same thing, vios, 
3,nd so D in L. 1. 18 jr/oo/k/fy/ci/i'a. 2 — The diphthong wv is non-existent 
(as also in Attic it may be said not to occur) ; MwvotJs is a trisyllable, 
and consequently to be written M(ov<rfjs. Hv (§ 15, 4) also in mss. 
such as «A regularly has the marks of diaeresis. 

'9. Consonants. Z-<r. — The spelling fi8, £/z in place of <r/3, 07* 3 is 
widely disseminated in the Hellenistic and Koman period, in order 
to indicate the soft sound which <r has in this position only. This f, 
however, is found far more rarely in the middle than at the beginning 
of a word. In the N.T. the MSS. have Zfivpva Ap. 1. 11, 2. 8 (», 
Latt. partly ; but {pvpva has little support, as D Mt. 2. 1 1, o-favpvrjs 
« Jo. 19. 39); tfevvvvai 1 Th. 5. 19 (B^FG). 

10. Single and double consonant. — With regard to the writing 
of a single or double consonant much obscurity prevails in the Boman 
period. The observance of the old-Greek rule, that />, if it passes 
from the beginning to the middle of a word (through inflexion or 
•composition), preserves the stronger pronunciation of the initial letter 
by becoming doubled, 4 is even in Attic Greek not quite without 
exceptions ; in the later period the pronunciation itself must have 
changed, and the' stronger initial p approximated to the weaker 
medial /o, so that even a reduplication with p was now tolerated 
(p€pavTio-p.€vos § 15, 6). The Syriac vss., however, still represent p 
by rh: araim e Pwp?- 5 The reduplication cannot be universally 
adopted in the KT. without great violence to the oldest MSS., al- 
though in these also there are still sufficient remnants of the ancient 
practice to be found: thus all MSS. have typrjgev L. 9. 42, IppkQr] 
Mt. 5. 21, 27 eta (always in these words, § 16, 1), see Gregory 
Tisch. iii. 121 ; aooaxrros always, apprjros 2 C. 12. 4, x €4 A"W 0l; $ J°- 
18. 1 etc.; on the other hand, <x/>a<£os Jo. 19. 23 (pp B), hripwirrei Mc. 
2. 21 (pp B 2 KMUT), diropfyavTes A. 27. 43 «C etc. But while 
this matter too belongs to orthography, the spelling pp recommends 
itself as a general principle, irap-qa-ia is wrong, since it is assimilated 
from Trav-prjo-ia (Traprjo-. B 1 Mc. 8. 3 2, and passim; also «DL sometimes, 
see Tisch.) 6 ; dppa/3(ov (a borrowed Semitic word) has the metrical 
prosody — _ — guaranteed and the doubling of the consonant estab- 
lished in its Semitic form (dpajB. 2 C. 1. 22 kAFGL, 5. 5 »DE, 
E. 1. 14 FG), cp. also Lat. arrha. 7 

In the case of the other liquids and all the mutes there are only 
isolated instances. jSaAXavrtov, not fiakdvTiov, is shown on quite 

1 Tischendorf , N.T. Vat., p. xxviii. 4. There seem to have been people 
who thought themselves bound, for correctness' sake, to pronounce hii-i-os, 
mii-i-a, in three syllables ; cp. Cramer, Anecd. Oxon. ill. 251. 

? (Herodian) Cram. An. Ox. III. 251 objects to the trisyllabic /uSta, Vtis. 

3 Her. ibid. 250. 4867 v. App. p. 328. 

§ 3- 10-12.] ORTHOGRAPHY. 1 1 

preponderating MS. evidence to be correct, and the orthography is 
also vouched for on metrical grounds. Qvyekos 2 Tim. 1. 15 CrD 
etc., -eXXos A : the single letter appears to be the better spelling. 1 
In pa/jLitivas NNIQIIQ the duplication of the p. has very slender attest- 
ation. IvvevrJKovTa, evvaros are wrong; ytvvrjfia for living creatures 
is correct (ycvi/ar, yevvaorQai), for products of the field incorrect, 
since these are termed yevrjfia from yiveo-Oat Mt. 26. 29, Mc. 14. 25, 
L. 12. 18 etc. This rests on quite preponderant evidence, which 
is confirmed by the papyri. 2 On x^( v ) V(0 j kt€w<o see § 17. In 
'Iwdvrjs the single y is attested by the almost universal evidence of 
B, often by that of D 3 ; it belongs to the series of Hellenised names 
(§ 10, 2), which treat the an of the Hebrew termination as a variable 
inflection (the lxx. have Twavav and 'Iwavov as var. lect., § 10, 2), 
whereas the interpretation of 'luxxvvrjs as from 'Iwavav-rjs (W.-Schm. 
§ 5, 26 c) affords no explanation whatever for the -^s. 4 On the other 
hand, "Avra H|n is correct, and 'Iwdvva (Aram. "jW, cp. 'j'WiD 
Hovo-awa, Mapiafi — MapidfifAY} of Josephus) is also explicable (L. 8. 3 
with v BD: 24. 10 with v only DL); the masc. 'Ai/j/as (for "jtt? 
Hebr., *Avavos Joseph.) might be influenced by the analogy of 
*'&vva. — Mutes : Kpdj3dTos appears to be commended by Lat grabatus, 
and the duplication of the ft (introduced by the corrector in B) is 
accordingly incorrect in any case ; but for the rr there is the greatest 
MS. authority (for which N has kt; the single t in B 1 only at Mc. 
2. 4). 5 Cp. W.-Schm. § 5, note 52. 'IoW?? is the orthography of the 
N.T. (1 Mace); elsewhere 'Idmy preponderates (W.-Schm. § 5, 
note 54). 

11. Doubling of the aspirate. — The aspirate, consisting of Tenuis 
-I- Aspiration, in correct writing naturally doubles only the first 

-element, k\, t0, 7r<f> ; but at all times, in incorrect writing, the two 
are doubled, X X> e ^ <M>- So N.T. 'A^fe for 'Avfla (§ 6, 7) 
Philem. 2 D 1 ; 2a<£<£ioa A. 5. 1 DE (but o-dir^ejipos Ap. 21. 19 
in all MSS.); €<f><f)ada or -eda Mc. 7. 34 nearly all : especially widely 
-extended is Ma66aio<s (in the title to the Gospel «BD); Maddlas 
A. 1. 23, 26 B 1 !); MaOOdv Mt. 1. 15 B(D); MadOaO (-aaO, -ar) 

L. 3. 29 HiB 1 . 

12. Assimilation. — Much diversity in writing is occasioned in 
Greek (as also in Latin) at all periods by the adoption or omission 
of the assimilation of consonants, which clash with each other by 
reason of their juxtaposition within a word. In the classical period 
the assimilation is often further extended to independent contiguous 
words, and many instances of this are still preserved in the oldest 
mss. of the Alexandrian period; at a later date there are a few 
remnants of it, and so we find the following in the MSS. of the 

1 $>vyt\ios (Gentile noun ?) C. I. Gr. ii 3027 cited by W.-Schm. ibid. d. 

2 Ibid, a; Deissmann, Bibelstudien, 105 f. [= Bible Studies 109 £]; Neue 
Bibelst. 12 [=do. 184]. Phrynichus, p. 286 Bk. censures the use of yfrvyfJLa (to 
be emended to y4prjfm) = Kapiroi as vulgar. 

s 4 5 v. App. p. 328. 

12 ORTHOGRAPHY. [§ 3. 12-13. 

KT.: a l/x neo-u) Ap. 1. 13, 2. 1 etc. AC, H. 2. 12 AP, Mt. 18. 2,. 
L. 18. 20 LA etc.; 6 crv/A Mapiap. L. 2. 5 AE al. ; <rvp. yracriv 24. 21 
EG al.; !y yavrpt L. 21. 23 A. The later period, on the other 
hand, in accordance with its character in other matters (cp. §§ 5, 1 ; 
28, 8), was rather inclined to isolate words and even the elements of 
words ; hence in the later papyri the prepositions kv and <rvv remain 
without assimilation even in composition, and so also in the old mss. 
of the N.T., but this more often happens with arvv than with lv, see 
W. H. App. 149 f., W.-Schm. § 5, 25 1 . 'E£ is everywhere assimilated 
to the extent that it loses the <r before consonants, both in composi- 
tion and as a separately-written word; but the Attic and Alexandrian 
writers went further, and assimilated the guttural, so that ey was 
written before mediae and liquids, ex before and <£. But the mss. of 
the N.T. are scarcely acquainted with more than eg and l/c; for l/cyova 
1 Tim. 5. 4 D 1 has eyyova (i.e. eggona, not engona, Blass, Ausspr. 123 s ), 
a7T€ySwr€t B* Col. 2. n; dveyknrros DL 12. 33. We naturally 
carry out our rule consistently. 

13. Transcription of Semitic words. — In the reproduction of 
adopted Semitic words (proper names in the main) the MSS. occa- 
sionally show an extraordinary amount of divergence, which is partly 
due to the ignorance of the scribes, partly also, as must be admitted, 
to corrections on the part of persons who thought themselves better 
informed. Thus the words on the cross in Mt. 27. 46 run as follows 
in the different witnesses : rjXet, — arjXi (dyki) - JAo>(€)i(/a), Xefia — Arjfia 
- \(€)ifia - Aajaa, <rafiaxdav{z)i — <ra/3aKTav€i — £a<j>0av€i (<ra<j>0.) ; in 
Mc. 15. 34 €\<o(€)t — eAoj>y — *7^(*K Ac/^a — kafi(fi)a — X(e)ifm 9 <ra/3ax0*— 
<raf3aKT.~-<rif2aKdav€L-£a(l3a)<l>dav€i. Grammar, however, is not con- 
cerned with individual words, but only with the rules for the tran- 
scription of foreign sounds, which are the same for the N.T. as for 
the LXX. 2 The following are not expressed : & ft, n, ft jvith 
some exceptions, where n is represented by x> as 'P^x^ P5*J, 
'Axa£ tns, Xappdv 'J'lft, Tracrxa **£???> SfPt varies between e Paxa/J 
Mt. 1. 5, Taa/? H. 11. 31, Ja. 2. 25 ; and $ by 7, as TSpoppa FTp5S, : 
Td£a HJJ; 'A/ccASc/Aax A. 1. 19 is strange for 502" ?J5.rt (cp. Sioax 
&*TD). 3 — ■* and 1 = 1 and v ; the latter (a half- vowel, our w, not our v) 
blends with the preceding vowel to form a diphthong : Aaw'S, Eva, 
Acvts, NWutrai L. 11. 32 4 ; cp. with this 2*€v& A. 19. 14 if this 
= Lat Scaeva. 5, §3, ft = x> & ^ ^ nus ^h aspiration, except when 
two aspirates would stand in adjacent syllables, in which case the 
Greeks differentiate also in native words; so Tiwxa (Joseph, has 
V. 1. <j>a€TKa : cp. LXX. "IDTtDD = Tiaxrx^p an( ^ ^wo-ovp), Ka(f>apvaovfj, 
CnrQ 1?3 (aBD Mt. 4. 13, ll. 23 etc., later MSS, Kcwrcov., see 

1 iraXLvyeyecta Mt. 19. 28 KB^DE etc., Tit. 3. 5 KACDEFG. 

2 Cp. C. Konneke in Progr. von Stargard, 1885. 

3 Reproduction of the guttural by prefixing a is seen in &ij\i Mt. 27. 46 (see 
above) L (Euseb.), Nadava-fa b#p), LXX. >Aepix&v )iD*jn, 'Awdup mi pp. 

4 Another reading Nivevij {male -evt). ab v. App. p. 306. 

: § 3- 13-14, § 4. 1.] DIVISION OF WORDS. 1 3 

Tisch. on Mt. 4. 13), Kr)<f>a<s. But fi is also represented by t, as in 
jrdfifiarov TQ,1Q ; cp. 'Ao-raor^, likewise admitted into the language 
at an early date*; TB 1 !^ becomes, in L. 4. 26, Hdpeirra in »AB 1 CD 
aL, 2ap€<j>da B 2 KLM; there is fluctuation also between Na£a/>€0, 
-per, -pa(0), where the corresponding Semitic form is uncertain. 
Ttwrjo-aped, -per in Mt. 14. 34, Mc. 6. 53, L. 5. 1, is incorrect, D in 
Mt., Mc. correctly Ttwrjcrap ; in 'EkurafiW, -filer the t corresponds 
to Semitic 9, Plti^R. On the other hand p, to are rendered by the 
tenues /c, t, 1 while ir is almost entirely absent from Semitic words. 
Sibilants: 05t 4 l2D = ^, * = £ (with the value of French z), but TJ3 
Mt. 1. 5 Bocs «B, Boos C, Boof EKLM aL; aittj &rowo&* On 
"Afcoros 11-lp^ see § 6, 7. 

14. In Latin words it must be noted that qui is rendered by kv: 
aquilo &kv\u)v (§ 28, 3) ; Kvpwios Quirinius sup. 6 ; likewise qua 
by ko : quadrans KoSpdvrrjs. 2 TJ is ov : kowtwoYo, Mt. 27. 65, 'Pov^os ; 
but also v : Kevtvpfav Mc. 15. 39.3 On i — e see § 6, 3. 


1. In the time of the composition of the N.T. and for long after- 
wards the division of words was not generally practised, although 
grammarians had much discussion on the subject of the position 
of accents and breathings, as to what might be regarded as ev fi€pos 
rov Xoyov and what might not. It is absent from the old mss., and 
moreover continues to be imperfect in the later MSS. down to the 
15th century. Of course it is the case with Greek as with other 
languages — the controversy of the grammarians shows it — that the 
individuality of separate words was not in all cases quite strictly 
established: words that were originally separate were by degrees 
blended together in such a way that it is not always perceptible 
•at what point in the development the separation came absolutely 
to an end. One indication of the fact that the blending has been 
completed is when the constituent parts can no longer be separated 
by another word : orav 8e, not 6Ve 8 y av is the correct expression, 
whereas os 8' av is employed ; in the N.T. we also have wowrtos 8e 
Mc. 14. 31, L. 20. 31, R. 8. 26 (on the other hand Homer has <os 8' 
avTws, which is still met with in Herodotus and Attic writers) 4 ; to 
8' avro, t$ yap avrij) are still retained in the N.T. On the same 
principle the following e.g. form one word : oo-tis (still separable in 
Attic), /cawrcp, toCwv, fxevroi, ovSe, ovre, ovSeirme, ovtt(o (the two last 
separable in Att.), px\n and /^rtye, axrei, (bcnrep, uxnrepei, in the N.T. 

1 Exception : <ra^ax6avl (see above) 'jnpa£, in which case, however, there is 
a reverse change by assimilation to -ktclvi. 

2 Cp. Eckinger, d. Orthogr. lat. W. in griech. Inschr., (Zurich) Miinchen, 
1893, p. 121 ff. 3 Dittenberger, Hermes vi. 296. Eckinger, p. 58 ff. 

4 Even as late as Philodem, prirop. ii. 97, Sudhaus. a b v. App. p. 306. 


also indisputably ovSei's, /^ocis, where ovtf vfi kvos can no longer, as. 
in Att., take the place of vir y ovSevos etc. A second criterion is 
afforded by the new accent for the combined words : kirki^-iva 
(virepkK€Lva) from hr 4/ccwx, ovSels from ov& ets, 1/cTraAat (I/ctotc) from 
}k (e/c rore) ; a third by the new signification of the com- 
pound : 7rapa,xp*lf JI ' a is no longer identical with mpa xprjpxi^ Ka$6\ov 
is different from ko.0' oAov, the origin of igavrfjs in c£ avrrjs rfjstbpas" 
and of Ivari in ha rl ykvrjrai is obscured. All this, however, by no 
means affords a universally binding rule, not even the absence of 
the first indication of blending ; for in that case one would have to- 
write e.g. os rts in Attic. So also in the KT. rovrka-ri 'that is' 
is not proved to be erroneous by the occurrence of a single instance 
of tovto 8k ka-n (R. 1. 12), but it certainly does prove that it is not 
the necessary form. In most cases it looks strange for preposi- 
tions before adverbs to appear as separate words, because the 
independent notion of the preposition is lost: therefore we have 
kirdv(a, v7rofcaTa>, kiravpiov i to-morrow,' dirkvavri, Ka0cwra£, virepXiav, 
vTr€p(zK)ir€pia'(rm 1 ; still dir apn ' from henceforth' appears to be 
correct, also i<j> cwra£ ' once for all,' ' at once/ cf. iirl rpis. On kolO* 
€ts, Kara eh see § 51, 5 y? virepeyio (Lachm. 2 0. 11. 23) is clearly 
an impossibility, as the sense is, I (subject) am so more than they 

2. The system of symbols for reading purposes (accents, breathings, 
etc.), developed by the Alexandrian grammarians, was in the first 
instance only employed for the text of poetry written in dialect, and 
was not carried out in ordinary prose till the times of minuscule 
writing.' 2 With regard to accents, we have to apply the traditional 
rules of the old grammarians to the N.T. as to other literature, 
except in so far as an accentuation is expressly stated to be Attic 
as opposed to the Hellenistic method, or where we notice in the 
later form of the language a prosody different from that of the 
earlier language, which necessitates a different accent. Peculiar 
to Attic is the accentuation Sikrrjs etc., in N.T. accordingly Sierrjs; 
also fx&pos for /aw/dos, axpcto? for d\p^os (whereas iprjpos, Jto?/aos, 
o/zoto^ were the ancient forms, and foreign to the Koivrf), IpdvTo? 
for IfxdvTos with a different prosody, x i ^ ia ^ v f° r -«&«"'> imperat. 
ISk Xafi'e for t&e \dfie. On the other hand we are informed by 
Herodian that Ix^vs -vv 9 6<r<f*v$ -vv were the ordinary, not a 
peculiarly Attic accentuation. One characteristic of the later 
language is the shortening of the stem-vowel in words in -fia, as 
OkfUL, Trofxa (§ 27, 2), therefore Kkipa, Kptfia also are paroxytone, 

1 Also birepeKTcepiaeov E. 3. 20, 1 Th. 3. 10 (5. 13, v.l. -o-tDs) always presents 
a single idea, and is completely held together by tiirep. Cp. § 28, 2. 

2 It is true that Euthalius already used those symbols in his edition of the 
!NT.T. writings (W.-Schm. 6, 1, note 1), and they are also found in individual 
uncials dating from the 7th century (Gregory Tisch. iii. 99 f. ) ; in 3 they 
originate from a corrector of the 10th or 11th century. 

3 According to Herodian's words (irepl /xov/jpovs X^fews, 938 L.) one would 
have concluded that ^/wftuoy, 2toi/jlos were peculiar to late Attic ; however* 
modern Greek also has fy^os (romance lang. ermo etc., Dietz, Etymol. Worterb. 
d. rom. Spr. I. sub verb. ) %Toifios, 6/mocos, but &xpetos. a v. App. p. 306. 

§ 4 . 2-3.] A CCENTS—BREA THINGS. 1 5 

not Kkifxa, Kptfia ; but xp^ (r l ia i s n °t analogous to these (cp. x/hotos), 
and is even written xP €l(T l xa in B 1 (1 Jo. 2. 20, 27). Also 7n/tyo9 
for 7rviyos, ptyos for pfyos are attested as vulgar forms (Lobeck, 
Phryn. 107), but there is no reason to infer from these that \pvx°* 
is the N.T. form of ^vx os » Herodian informs us that the shortening 
of 1 and v before £ was the general rule, hence we get &f}Xig 9 Krjpvg, 
K7]pvg<u ; but we have no ground whatever for extending this rule 
to t and v before ^, and B has OXeiif/is, hence accent OXtyis ; similarly 
ptyav (p€t\f/av B) from plrnta, whereas the prosody of kv7tt<o is not 
established, and the accent of kv\j/cu is therefore equally uncertain. 
Kp&&, Kpa£ov; Tpi/3a>, €Tpl\pa etc. (with ei before ^ in B and the 
Herculanean rolls), therefore <rvvT€Tpl<j>Qai Mc. 5. 4 (o-wtct/ock^&u 
B). In aiti Aos ' spot ' the quantity of the 1 is unattested, except 
indirectly by.B, which throughout has anrtXos, axnriXo?, <nriXow ; this 
proves that it is not <nri\os. In otKrippnav, olKTipfxos, in which B 
has ei in almost all cases (contrary to all analogy : the words occur 
in the old dialects), the accent does not enter into the question. 
Ta{o<f>v\aKLov, not -etov, is the constant form in B, and is also made 
probable by the analogy of such words as reXiavtov, fivpoTrmXiov 9 
elSwXiov (§ 27, 3) has also better attestation in the N.T. (rAB etc.) 
than -€6oi\ In Latin proper names the quantity of the vowel in 
Latin is the standard for determining the accent. This is definitely 
fixed for Marcus, Priscus, quartus ; hence Mapicos, Kpuriros, 1 Kovapros; 
but 2eKovv8o<s or SckowSos. In spite of everything there remains 
considerable doubt in the accentuation, since the accents of the MSS. 
are not altogether decisive ; everything connected with the Hebrew 
proper names is completely uncertain, but there is also much uncer- 
tainty in the Greek and Grecised names. 

3. The same principle must be followed for determining the 
breathing, yet with somewhat greater deference to the mss., not so 
much to the actual symbols employed by them, as to the writing 
with aspirate or tenuis in the case of the elision of a vowel or in the 
case of ovk, ovx- It is established from other sources as well that 
the rough breathing in the Hellenistic language did not in all cases 
belong to the same words as in Attic ; the mss. of the N.T. have 
a place among the witnesses, although to be sure some of these, such 
as D of the Gospels and Acts, are generally untrustworthy in the 
matter of tenuis or aspirate, and they are never agreed in the doubt- 
ful cases. Smooth for rough breathing is very strongly attested in 
Jo. 8. 44 ovk €cm?fc€v («B X DLX al.), which might be a newly-formed per- 
fect of ecrojv (rrrjKQ), and not an equivalent for forqiecv 'stands/ or impf. 
of orrrjKb), see § 23, 6. The rough breathing is abundantly vouched 
for in certain words that originally began with a digamma : eXiris, 
iwq;<» (J<£' kXTrtii) A. 2. 26 tfCD, R. 8. 20 kB^FG, 1 C. 9. 10 
in the first occasion only FG, in the second only A. R 4. 18 
CWFG, 5. 2 DW, Tit. 1. 2 D* (Jv FG), 3. 7 naff FG (/cara D), 
A. 26. 6 no attestation. a^cATTifbvTcs DP L. 6. 35 (afaXiriKm 

1 B has Kpei<rTos, also in some places the equally correct forms Il/oetaa, 

X6 BREATHINGS. [§ 4. 3-5. 

Herm. Vis. iii. 12. 2 «) ; there is also one example of this from Attic 
Greek, another from Hellenistic, the Greek O.T. supplies several. 1 
— I8€tv: d#&> Ph. 2. 23 kAFDW, €<f>c8€ A. 4. 29 ADE, ifctto 
L. 1. 25 DW C A(X), oi x tSov A. 2. 7 kDE, o£ x l«ms 1 Rl. 8 B 1 
which also has o^x €?oW G. 1. 19 ; many examples of a<£-, 4<£-, /ca0- 
in O.T. 2 The form tSios- often attested in inscriptions 3 exists in 
Kaff ISiav Mt. 14. 23 D (ibid. 13 all have /car'), 17. 19- ffD, 
20. 17 B 1 , 24. 3 KB 1 , Mc. 4. 34 B X DA, 6. 31 B 1 (not 32); in B 1 
again in 9. 28, 13. 3 (elsewhere B also kolt'). 'E^io/o/ojo-eis Mt. 5. 33 K 
(widely extended, Phryn. p. 308 Lob., from ariopicj) ; but Itos (/car' 
eros L. 2. 41, Hellenistic often tiros) does not appear in the N.T. 
with the rough breathing.** Sporadic instances like ovk ebpov, ovk 
€V€Kw, ov% SifearQe (Gregory Tisch. iii. 90) must be regarded as 
clerical errors; ovx oktyos, however (where there is no former 
digamma in question), is not only a good variant reading in nearly 
all the passages in the N.T. (A 12. 18 «A, 14. 28 n, 17. 4 B* 
19. 23 nAD, 19. 24 «, 27. 20 A ; elsewhere only 15. 2, 17. 12), but 
is found also in the LXX. and the papyri. 5 

4. A difficult, indeed insoluble, question is that concerning the 
use of rough or smooth breathing in Semitic words, especially proper 
names. The principle carried out by Westcott and Hort appears to 
be rational, namely, of representing ^ and y by the smooth breath- 
ing, Jri and rt by the rough, a practice which gives us many strange 
results : 'A/^cA. (n)> e AA.$a?os (in), Eva (n), "Avva (n), and *Avawas 
(rr), aXXrjkovca (n)> but 'Eppatos (#). 5 The MS. evidence, on the 
other hand, is deserving of little confidence in itself, and these 
witnesses are anything but agreed among themselves (Ho-atas — 'Ho-., 
< Af3padfi-'Afip., 'HAias- e HA. etc.). 6 Initial 1 must, when repre- 
sented by t, receive the smooth breathing, except where Hellenisation 
connects the Hebrew with a Greek word with a rough breathing : 
'Upo<r6\vfia (but 'lepovo-akrjfx, 'Ispix^, in accordance with the rule). 
Ho-aiccs has dropped the 1 (so also Aram. K^ttDK). 

5. Of the remaining symbols, the familiar signs for long and short 
in unfamiliar words might in many cases be employed with advan- 
tage, so l in Semitic words as an equivalent for the et of the mss. 
(§ 3, 4). The marks of diaeresis, which from a very early time 
were made use of to indicate a vowel which began a syllable, 
especially 1 or v, are necessary or useful in cases where the 1 or v 
might be combined with a preceding vowel to form a diphthong : 
'Axata, AyaiKos, 'Efipato-Ti, UroXepLats, Tdi'os (the last name was still 

1 Gregory, p. 91 ; W.-Schm. § 5, 10 a; A Thumb, Spir. asper (Strassburg, 
1889), p. 65, 71. 

2 Gregory, ibid., Thumb 71. 

3 Thumb, ibid. 

4 Ibid. 72. * ° v. App. p. 306. 

5 Berl. Aeg. Urk. No. 72 ; W.-H. 143. Elsewhere however, as in No. 2, ovk 
6\. and N.T. £*' 6\lya D Mt. 25. 21, 23. 

® Cp. Gregory, 106 f. Jerome in his explanation of Biblical names avowedly 
brings K n n p under one head, and never writes h for any of these letters. 


a trisyllable in Latin when the literature was at its prime). 1 In 
Semitic names, moreover, it is often a question what is a diphthong 
and what is not ; the use of the marks of diaeresis in ancient MSS. 
(as in D Xopo£ai'v, BrjOo-aiSd) and the Latin translation can guide 
us here, thus ; Ieo-o-at Jessae (-e), 'E<£pcu/z Ephraem (-em, also KL in 
Jo. 11. 54 -e/z), 2 but Kal'v, NcuV, Hcratas, B7]$o-ai'8d(v), although in 
the case of Katvdv, in spite of the Latin ai and of KcuVav in D, 
according to the primary Semitic form Q^p) aL appears to be 
more correct. 3 

On K<u(a)<£as Caiphas it is difficult to make any assertion ; 4 on 
Mwi'cnjs see § 3, 8. The hypodiastole may be employed in 6, n for 
distinction, though o tl may likewise be written (but ooms). 

6. As regards punctuation, it is certain that the writers of the N.T. 
were acquainted with it, inasmuch as other writers of that time 
made use of it, not only in MSS., but frequently also in letters and 
documents ; but whether they practised it, no one knows, and 
certainly not how and where they employed it, since no authentic 
information has come down to us on the subject. The oldest 
witnesses (» and B) have some punctuation as early as the first 
hand ; 5 in B the higher point on the line (any fir)) is, as a rule, 
employed for the conclusion of an idea, the lower point (virocmy^ 
viz. AYTON.) where the idea is still left in suspense. One very 
practical contrivance for reading purposes, which (although often 
imperfectly executed) meets us e.g. in D of the Gospels and Acts, 
and in D (Claromont.) of the letters of St. Paul, and which Euthalius 
about the middle of the 5th century a employed in his editions of 
New Testament writings, is the writing in sense-lines (cttixol), the 
line being broken off at every, even the smallest, section in the train 
of ideas, which required a pause in reading. 6 Later editors are 
compelled to give their own punctuation, and therewith often 
enough their own interpretation : this they do very decidedly when 
they put signs of interrogation (which in the MSS. are not earlier 
than the 9th century) in place of full stops. Economy in the use of 
punctuation is not to be commended : the most correct principle 
appears to be to punctuate wherever a pause is necessary for reading 

1 As proved by Fr. Allen, Harvard Studies in Class. Phil. ii. (Boston, 1891), 
71 ff, 

2 ]E>#3 L. 4. 27 is JSaifiav {-as) in tfABCDKL, hence X Nefiav, Latt. (some) 
Neman ; but TSeefAav EFM al. and other Latt.; the remaining Latt. Naaman. 

3 YLaivajj. or -vav without the marks of diaer. both B and fc* ; B always 
Br)daraida(v), ^ partly (in three instances) -cra'CSa(v), partly -craL8a(v) (three 
instances also) ; H<rcu<xs B mostly (except R. 9. 22, 29, 10. 16, 20), K nine 
times Ho-aias, ten times B-cratas ; but NaiV, KaiV fc*B constantly. 

4 For Ivcua</>as D and most Latt. have Kcucpas (Kaei0., K^0.) ; Ka'Cdtpas is also 
found in Josephus. The Semitic spelling is tft^p, so that there is a clear 
distinction between this name and K7]<pas which is fca^. Lagarde, Ubersicht 
iib. d. Bildung d. Nomina, 97. Mitt. 4. 18. Schurer, Gesch. d. jxid. Volkes 2, 
156. 159 (Nestle). 5 6 v. App. p. 328. a v. App. p. 306. 

1 8 ELISION. [§5-1-2. 


1. It is in keeping with the tendency to a greater isolating of 
individual words, which we have mentioned above (§ 3, 12) as 
characteristic of the language of the period, that only a very 
moderate use is made in the N.T., according to the MS. evidence 
which may here be relied on, of the combination of words by means 
of the ousting (elision) or blending (crasis) of the concluding vowel 
(or diphthong) of a word. This tendency was carried so far, that 
even in compound words the final vowel of the first component part 
was not elided (rerpa-dpxqs in the N.T., in later Greek opo-ovo-tos ; 
§28, 8). 1 In no case does elision take place in noun or verb forms ; 
even in the verse of Menander, 1 C 15. 33, there is no necessity 
whatever to write X/ 07 ?* 7 "^' ofiiXlai for \py]o-Ta b(i. for the sake of the 
verse, since the writing with elision or in full (plene, the regular 
Latin usage) was always, even in verse, quite a matter for individual 
opinion with the ancients. The only case where a pronoun suffers 
elision is tovt' eo-ri or rovrkcm (§ 4, l) a ; so that it is particles alone 
which are still coupled together with comparative frequency with 
other words, though here also the elision might be much more 
abundant than it is. 2 'AAAa, according to Gregory, out of 345 cases 
where a vowel follows, undergoes elision in 215 (in these statistics it 
must, however, be remembered that the standard MSS. are far from 
being always in agreement) ; before articles, pronouns, and particles 
it shows a greater tendency to combine than before nouns and verbs. 
Ae : 8' av frequently, otherwise combination hardly ever takes 
place (Ph. 2. 18 81 avTo kBP, 8> avro ACDE al). Ov$ av H. 8. 4, 
o-uS' ov Mt. 24. 21, H. 13. 5, ovE ovtus 1 C. 14. 21, ov8 y on E. 9. 7; 
in ov8' tva H. 9. 25, C deviates from the rest with ov8k ; the scriptio 
plena is more widely attested in ov8' el A. 19. 2, ov8' fj H. 9. 18 ; 
elsewhere the final vowel remains. Te, ovre, pyTe, a/xa, apa, apa etc. 
are not subject to elision. In prepositions, elision very seldom 
takes place where a proper name follows; even on inscriptions of an 
earlier time there was a preference for preserving the names 
independent and recognisable by writing the preposition in full. 
On the other hand, there was a tendency to elision in the case 
of current phrases, and where a pronoun followed : owr' dpxrjs, dir 9 
apri, air avrov, air ejnov, hr avTO), /car' e//i, kolt (kci#') ISlolv, Kar 
oikov, fxer e/xov, irap wv, vcf> yj/jluv (i'/xa>i/), vir ovfttvos (1 C 2. 15). 
'Avtl undergoes elision only in dvO' &v } elision is most frequent with 
Sid (because there were already two vowels adjacent to each other), 
thus 81 v7ro{Jiovrjs R. 8. 25, 8l kcroTrrpov 1 C. 13. 12 ; but with 
proper names 81a 'Irjcrov R. 16. 27, 8ua 'Ho-atov Mt. 8. 17 (before 
'AfipadpL H. 7. 9 8l<x and 8l' are both attested). 

2. The use of crasis is quite limited in the N.T. In the case of 
the article, which affords so many instances in Attic Greek, there 

1 See Gregory, 113 ff. a v. App. p. 306. 

2 Gregory, 93 ff. Zimmer, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Th., 1881, 487 ff; 1882, 340 ff. 


occur only the following in the N.T. : rovvavriov 2 C. 2. 7, G. 2. 7, 
1 P. 3. 9 (stereotyped as a single word, hence rovv. 8e) ; ToiW/xa 
'by name' Mt. 27. 57 (D rb ovofia) ; Kara ravra (yap) L. 6. 23, 26, 
17. 30, but even in this phrase (which is equivalent to a single word) 
there is not wanting strong attestation for ra avrd. 1 With kcu the 
crasis is constant in kclv= ' if it be but/ fairly constant in kolv = ' even 
if (but /car for /cat JaV ' ar?^ if is only sporadically found) ; in most 
places there is preponderating evidence for icayw, k<x/jloi, /cd/*€, icd/cctvos, 
KaK€i(@ev). 2 Thus /cat is only blended with the following word, if it 
be a pronoun or a particle ; of KaXeyev and the like there appears to 
be hardly a thought. 3 

3. The variable v after t and e at the end of a word became more 
and more firmly established in Attic Greek in the course of time, as 
the inscriptions show, and so passed over into the Hellenistic 
language as the favourite termination, though modern Greek shows 
us that it subsequently disappeared again. In the standard MSS. of 
the N.T. it is but seldom wanting, whether a consonant or a vowel 
follow it, or the word stands at the end of a sentence ; the rule that 
the v should always be inserted before a vowel and always omitted 
before a consonant is indeed not without a certain ratio, and receives 
a certain amount of early support from the usage of the papyri, but 
as far as we know the rule was only formulated in the Byzantine 
era, and the instances where it is broken are quite innumerable. 4 
The v is wanting 5 occasionally after -e (L. 1. 3 e'So£e ^BCD etc., 
-ev AEKSA), and in ko-rlv, somewhat more often after the -o-t of the 
plural (xaAwo-t most MSS. Mc. 2. 4, exovo-t L. 16. 29, rifx^cn twice 
Jo. 5. 23), most frequently, comparatively speaking, after -o-t dat. 
plur.; irepvo-i 6 2 C. 8. 10, 9. 2 (D*FG irepa-v, D b Trepurv which is else- 
where attested), 7 and et/coo-t (12 exx. in N.T.) 8 remain free from it. 

4. The o- of ofa-cos is also established, for the most part, in the 
N.T. before consonants as well as before vowels ; ovto) is only 
strongly attested in A. 23. 11 (kAB before <re), Ph. 3. 17 («ABD*FG 

1 In Acts 15. 27 there is for r<x avrd a v.l. in D ravra (as rovro is sometimes 
read for rb avro). 1 Th. 2. 14 A ravra (with coronis). Ph. 3. I N*FGP ravra. 
1 P. 5. 9 all MSS. ra avrd. With conjunction, rd yap avrd, rb dk avro 

2 The statistics are given in Gregory, 96 f.; Zimmer, I.e., 1881, 482. Kal lav 
all MSS. in Mt. 5. 47, 10. 13 etc.; kolv 'and if 'Mc' 16. 18, L. 13. 9 (D /cat lav), 
6. 34 D, Ja. 5. 15'; more often ' even if,' as Mt. 26. 35, Jo. 8. 14 (but in 16 only 
£* has k&v). 

3 Nor yet of dde\<poi, direaraXfievoL, which Holwerda conjectures in A. 28. 15, 
Jo. 1. 24, whereas his proposals in A. 22. 5 nav (for Kal) ...IfiaprtipeL (B), Mt. 
12. 21 Kav (for Kal, = Kal Iv), L. 18. 7 k&v jmaKpodv/uir} (for Kal fi-el) are more 
probable. But D* has KairedvpeL in L. 15. 16. 

4 Kiihner-Blass, i. 3, i. 292. 

5 W. H. 146 ff. ; Gregory, 97 ff. 

6 Lex. rhet. in Reitzenstein Ind. lect. Rostoch. 1892/3, p. 6 : irepvcnv oi 
'Arrt/cot fierd rod v, (pcavrjevros lirKpepoiuLevov. 

7 Hermas, Vis. iii. 10. 3 irepavvr) tf, irepio-vvy as, - TrepvaLvrj, but ii. 1. I rrlpvat 
twice (once nepai #*). Dieterich, Unters. z. Gesch. d. gr. Spr. 37. W. Cronert, 
Zeitschr. f. Gymn.-W. Iii. 580. 

8 v. App. p. 328. 

20 SPORADIC SOUND-CHANGES. [§ 5. 4, § & l. 

before Trepnrar.), H. 12. 21 (k*A before $>opep6v\ Ap. 16. 18 (ttAB 
before peyas). "A^pt and p^X/ 01 generally stand, as in Attic, even before 
a vowel without cr 3 according to the majority of the mss., but ^XP LS 
aLfiaros H. 12. 4 (-pt D*), and more frequently ^XP LS (&XP LS ) °$ 
Mc. 13. 30 (x-pt, D eios), G. 3. 19, 4. 19, H. 3. 13 (a X pt M), while in 
1 C. 11. 26, 15. 25 etc., the witnesses are divided. 'AvriKpvs Xcov 
A. 20. 15 'over against 7 (a late usage), Att. (Kar)avTLKpv (dvriKpvs. 
in Attic = ' downright , \ 1 


1. General sound-changes in the language of the N.T. as opposed 
to Attic Greek do not openly present themselves, or at least are no 
longer apparent, being concealed by the older orthography, which 
either remained unaltered or was restored by the scribes (cp. § 3, 1). 
Of sporadic alterations which influenced the spelling as well as 
the pronunciation of words, the following are noteworthy : — 

A — E (a - r), av- ev). For ap we have ep in T€<rcr€pdK0VTa (Ion., mod. 
Gk., also papyri) in all cases according to the earliest evidence ; 
also reo-crepa Jo. 19. 23 nALM, Ap. 4. 6, A. 4. 9 ttA etc.; but 

reVo-apes, -apo>i/, -apcrt : recrcrepas never, but in place of it -ape? — 
accusative (see § 8, 2), so that we must give the regular inflection 
reWape?, -apa etc., to the N.T. writers ( = Ionic and mod. Gk. 
-epes, -epa etc.). 2 KaOapt^etv also frequently has ep in the MSS. 
(Kadapos never; cp. also /xwepos Clem, ad Cor. i. 14. 1, 30. 1 A): 
Mt. 8. 3 eKaOtpicrOr] B*EL al. (ibid. KaOapLo-QrjTL, 2 KaQaptcrai all 
MSS.), Mc. 1. 42 €Ka@epi<T@r) AB*CG al. (41 KaOapicrdrjTL, 40 
KaOapio-ai, 44 KadapLv/jiov all MSS.); elsewhere more often with 
-ep-, especially in A ; 3 no possible paradigm results from this, -ap- 
must be written throughout. Cp. further lidrepa for -apa AC 
A. 21. 1. — Variation between ta-te (va-ve): </>taA?7, vaXos, as in 
Attic (Ionic and Hellenistic c^ieA??, vekos Phryn. Lob. 309), x^ L€ P°s 
Ap. 3. 16 only in«; vice versa, a/x</>ta£et B in L. 12. 28 for -e£ei, 
-ewvo-iv see § 17. The vulgar term Trtd^co ' seize' (§ 24, Xycrro- 
TrcaoTTys Papyr. Berl. Aeg. Mus. 325, 2) comes from the Doric 
7ria£a) = 7rte£co 'press, ,a but has become differentiated from it (Trexie- 
cr/xevos 'pressed down' L. 6. 38). — a and ev at the close of a word: 
ev€K€v (etV.) is Ionic and Hellenistic; the Attic eVe/ca (§ 40, 6) cannot 
be tolerated except in A. 26. 21, where all the witnesses have it 
(speech of Paul before Agrippa, cp. § 1, 4; on the other hand in 
19. 32 -i<a is only in ttAB). 4 The Ionic and Hellenistic en-ev for 
efaa is only found in Mc. 4. 28 kB*L ; eVetrei/ nowhere (according to 
Phrynichus 124, Lob., both words are eo-xdrm fiapfiapa). For 
dyyapevo) (a word borrowed from Persian : so spelt in mod. Gk.), 

1 Apoc. Petr. 21, 28 (Kar)avrcKp^s e/cetVoi/, avrcov, 29 KaravrtKpij toijtojv, 

2 Gregory, 80. Buresch, Rh. Mus. xlvi. 217 f. 

3 Gregory, 82. Buresch, 219. 

4 BiVe/ca Hermas, Vis. iii. 1. 9 K, but 2. I elvenev K, eVe/ca as, 5. 2 eveKev K, 
epeKa as. a v. App. p. 306. 


•iyyap. Mt. 5. 41 k, Mc. 15. 21 k*B*.{ For AaXfxariav 2 Tim. 4. 10, 
A Aep/i., C AeX/x.; in Latin also we have Delm. side by side with 
Dalm. l —A-B.: 68tiy6s 66ayw (Doric, but also in the kolvyj) D Mt. 
15. 14, L. 6. 39 (but in Jo. 16. 13, A. 8. 31 D also reads rj), cp. 
Lobeck, Phryn. 429. — AY for EY : epawav for kpewav Jo. 5. 39 nB*, 
7. 52 KB*T etc. (KB* in general, AC occasionally), an Alexandrianisni 
according to Buresch, Eh. Mus. xlvi. 213 (lxx. kA generally, not 
BC : frequent in papyri). 2 

2. A - O, E - O. HaTpoAwas, /x^TpoAcoas (§ 3, 3) were written 
instead of -aXotas, from dXo(t)av 1 Tim. 1. 9 according to KADFGL, 
on the analogy of iraTpo-KTovos etc., when the formation of the 
words had been forgotten. Mea-avvKnov Mc. 13. 35 only B*, L. 11. 5 
only D*, in A. 16. 25 and 20. 7 all MSS. /xecroi/- ; cp. pLeo-aarvXcov 
Lob. Phryn. 195. a KoAoo-o-cu C. 1. 2 is read by nearly all mss., 
but the title is rrpbs KoAao-craets in AB*K(K). The editor would 
bring the text and the title, which certainly did not originate 
with the author, into agreement \ in favour of o we have the coins 
and nearly all the evidence of profane writers (-a- is a v.l. in 
Xenophon, Anab. i. 2. 6). — E - O : i^oXoOpemcv A. 3. 23 «B 3 EP al. 
•(-€- AB*CD), okoOpevziv H. 11. 28 (-€- only ADE), oXoOpevr^ 1 C. 
10. 10 (-e- D*[FGr]). Thus the evidence is overwhelming for the 
second o, which has arisen from assimilation with the first o (as in 
6(3oX6s for 6/3eX6s), this is also the popular spelling (mod. Gk. 
goXoOpevoj); side by side with it oXeOpos remains constant in N.T. 
Buresch 3 is in favour of e in the N.T. and the LXX.; in the latter, 
where the word is extraordinarily frequent, we should write with € 
according to kA*B*(B c -o-). — In 'AttcAAtjs A. 18. 24, 19. 1 «* for 
'AttoXXcos ('A7ToAAcoi/to5 D) it must be remembered that the names 
are originally identical : 'A7reAAwv being Doric for 'A-n-oXXoiv. It 
appears in fact that in the Acts we should read AttcXXtjs (in the 
a text), whereas 'AttoAAws is an interpolation from 1 C. 1. 12 etc.; 
the scholia also (Cramer, Caten., p. 309) seem to assume a difference 
with regard to the name between Acts and 1 Corinthians. 

3. E - 1, I - Y. The Latin % in the majority of cases where the 
vowel was no pure i, but inclining to e, was represented by the 
older Greek writers not by 1 but by e : TefiepLs* Te/3eptos, Ao/xenos, 
KaTTcrwAioi/ and others (but Ttros always with t), see Dittenberger, 
Herm. vi. 130 ff. In the N.T. Tc/Septov L. 3, 1 is the traditional 
spelling, but Xevnov linteum Jo. 13. 4 f., 5 Aeyecov legio the majority 
of uncials in Mt. 26. 53 (-1- k*B*DL), Mc. 5. 9 (-1- k*B*CDLA), 
15 (-L- »*BLA, hiat D), L. 8. 30 (-l- k*B*D*L). In the N.T. the 

best authority thus supports -aov; both forms occur in inscriptions. 6 

1 De Vit. Onomasticon tot. lat. s.v. 

2 Gregory, 81. W. Schmid, Gtg. Gel. Anz., 1895, 40. 

3 Op. cit. 216 f., cp. also H. Anz. Subsidia ad cognosc. Graecorum serm. 
vulg. e Pentat. vers, repetita (Diss. phil. Hal. xii. ), p. 363. 'OXoOpeijovrcu stands 
side by side with 6\edpos also in Clem. Horn. xi. 9. 

4 Hernias, however, has Ti^epip Vis. i. 1. 2. 

5 Ditt. 144 (Hesych. ; \evriapio5, inscr.j. 

(5 lbid. 142 {keyltbv also in Plut. iiom. 13, Otho 12: -ew in Pap. Oxyrh. ii. 
> 265). + v. App. p. 328. ** v. App. p. 328. a v. App. p. 306. 


The opposite change is seen in UotloXol Puteoli (A. 28. 13), the 
ordinary Greek spelling l (similar is the termination of Xevnov ;, 
the form Xkvreov would have looked unnatural to a Greek). In 
the Greek word dXtevs it appears that if the termination contains 
l (-tet, -els), the preceding t becomes e from dissimilation : aAeets 
Mt. 4. 18 f. »*B*C, Mc. 1. 16 AB*L conr -, 17 kAB*CLA, L. 5. 2 
K*ACLQ.— I - Y : MvriXrjvq is the older spelling, MltvX. A. 20. 14 
that of the later writers ; for TpuytXiov or -ia (Strab., Stephan. 
Byzant., Plin.) the MSS. in A. 20. 15 have -vXLa, -vX(X)iov (-vXiov> 
-os MSS. of Ptolem. v. 2. 8). 

4. Interchange of short and long vowel (or diphthong). — A - Q,. 

dvdyaiov, dvdyaiov (cp. on at - e, § 3, 7) : the spelling with a has 
overwhelming authority in Mc. 14. 15, L. 22. 12 (from dvd-yrj ; 
dvwycuov with v.l. dvoKdiov in Xenoph. Anab. v. 4. 29). — EI before 
a vowel easily loses its 1 from early times, especially in derivatives 
("Apcios 7rdyos, but ' ApeowayiTrjs as in N.T.); hence may be explained 
rjxpe<»0w av & 3 - I2 O.T. (nAB*D*G, in lxx. kA 2 ), whereas 
dxpetos does not vary. But there are instances in the simple 
word as well : reXeos (and rtXeovv) often in Attic, reXetos (and reXei- 
ovv, but TeAewo-at D c in H. 10. 1) N.T.; -n-Xeov also in N.T. occa- 
sionally, L. 3. 13 (-€lov C), A. 15. 28 (D -dov), elsewhere w Actor, 
and always TrActW, irXelovos etc. (Attic also has irXeovos) ; in the 
derivatives always irXeove^ta, -eKreiv. — N.T. always co-w (Homer and 
tragedians have etcraj and ecru) ; on the other hand, ctVe/<ei/ with 
lengthened vowel (Ionic ; etVefca is found in Attic Gk. as well, even 
in prose) is an alternative for cVckci/ in L. 4. 18, O.T. (also lxx. 
Is. 61. 1; supra p. 20, note 4), A. 28. 20 n*A, 2 C. 3. 10 (most mss.). — 
O - 12 : Trpixitpos (from 7r/)wt) and irpo'Cpos Ja. 5. 7 (o kAB*P) are 
comparable with irXuipos (Att.) and ttAoL/zos (late writers). For 
Xpz-ofaiXerris L. 7. 41, 16. 5 we should not write X/° ea)< £- (which has. 
less authority); 2 nor should we replace the correct ^Ztohkos A. 17. 18 
by 2rotKos of nAD al. — [Y-OY: KoXXipiov Ap. 3. 18 tfBC, -ovpcov 
AP does not belong here, on account of the long v; the latter form, 
which is found elsewhere, is certainly of Latin origin.] A peculiar 
word is ofieipofiai or dp,., which is equivalent to Ipeipopcu (eTrtOvpuj) in 
sense, 1 Th. 2. 8 (in O.T. sporadically), 3 but cannot easily be connected 
with tpetp. (from ipepos) ; but peipopai appears to exist in this sense 
(Nicand. Theriac. 403), cp. (6)8vpopai, (o)fceAAo), and the like, 
Kiihner, P, i. 186. 

5. Contraction and loss of vowel. — In contraction the Hellenistic 
language, as appears from its inflections, does not go quite so far a& 
the Attic. Still vtoprjvta for Att. vovprjvca in Col. 2. 16 is only attested 
by BFG (lxx. occasionally): while dyaOoepyetv (1 Tim. 6. 18;. 
dyaQovpywv A. 14. 17, v.l. dyaOoTrocwv) arises from the endeavour 
to keep the two halves of the compound word recognisable, § 28, 8 

1 Ditt. 145. 

2 Herodian, ii. 606 L. , has o> and o ; the word is certainly not Attic (the oldest 
form is XPW T7 1S> then xpewcrr^s) ; xpew-^uXct/aoj' and the like come from Attic- 
Xpeus = xpeos. See further Lobeck, Phryn. 691 ; W.-Schm. § 16, 5, n. 28. 

3 See W.-H. 152 a, W.-Schm. § 16, 6. a v. App. p. 307. 


(always KaKovpyos, Upovpyelv etc.). 1 An entirely new kind of con- 
traction is that of tec = ii into i : rafxetov from Tapadov, irelv (pin) 
from iTLeiv, see § 24, eireLKeta B* Acts 24. 4 2 (so also vyeia for vyUca y 
no instances in N.T.). In veocrcros, veoo-crta, veoo-crtov contraction 
never took place, but the e dropped out in (Ionic and) Hellenistic 
G-k.: so in N.T. vo<r<r6s L. 2. 24 **BE al., vocro-id with v.l. voo-aia 
13. 34, Mt. 23. 37 (condemned by Phryn. 206, Lob.). In kXeivos 
(Att.) for eAeetvos it must be remembered that the spelling eXeivos 
(Ap. 3. 17 AP, 1 C. 15. 19 FG) may also represent eXeivos, and 
moreover, contraction in the N.T. is improbable. The reflexives in 
Hellenistic Gk. are o-ttivrov, kdvrov (and ZptivTov), § 13, 1 ; the con- 
junction 'if is £dv, § 26, 4, a form which is also very largely 
introduced to express the potential particle (ibid.) 

6. Prothetic vowels. — The only points to note under this head 
are that #eAo> always stands for e^eAw ; on the other hand /cetvos 
never stands for l/<€tvos : similarly \6k is n °t found, but only e\0k 
(also the prevalent Attic form) Jo. 4. 52 kAB*GD al., A. 7. 28 
kB*CD, H. 13. 8 kAC*D*M. On opetpopat vide supra 4. 

7. Interchange of consonants. — The main point under this head 
is that the Hellenistic language did not adopt the Attic substitution 
of tt for o-or or of pp for per, though isolated instances of this were 
continually intruding into it from the literary language, especially 
as Atticising writers naturally imitated this peculiarity as well as 
Others. In the N.T. for crcr we have : OdXacrcra, Trpdcro-o), Tapdcrcro), 
eKTrXrjo-o-OfiaL (tt A. 13. 12 B) 7repi<xcros ; also Kpeicrcrcov Pauline 
epp. on preponderant evidence (1 C. 7. 38, 11. 17, Ph. 1. 23, only 

1 C. 7. 9 -tt- kBDE), but KpetTTiov Hebrews (tt 1. 4, 7. 7, 19, 22, 
8. 6 [twice], 9. 23, 11. 16, 35, 40, 12. 24, there is diversity only in 
6, 9, where tt is read by D*K, and 10. 34 0-0- ttA) and Petrine epp. 
(1 P. 3. 17; doubtful 2 P. 2. 21). To this corresponds rjo-auv, 
rjcro-ovorOcu in St. Paul (1 C. 11. 17, 2 C. 12. 13, 15), but the literary 
words rjTTao-Ocu, ^TTiqpa are read with tt even in his letters, 

2 P. 2. 19 f., E. 11. 12, IC.6.7; eAaVow Jo. 2. 10, K. 9. 12 O.T.; 
ZXaTTuv H. 7. 7, 1 Tim. 5. 9 (all mss.; cp. § 2, 4); literary words, 
eXaTTOvdv 2 C. 8. 15 O.T. ; eXaTTOVV H. 2. 7 (9) O.T., Jo. 3. 30. 
(tt is also occasionally found in Hermas : Vis. iii. 7. 6 cAcittoi/ ; 
Sim. ix. 27. 4 JAaTTovs ; 9. 6 eAaTTw/xa). Similarly o-qpepov always 
takes the place of Att. TTjpepov. — With regard to Att. pp for per the 
usage is more evenly divided. "Apo-qv Gospels, Ap. 12. 5 (but 
dp(p)€va «B, clearly a correction for dpo-ev), E. 1. 27 [twice] 
(pp »*[C]), G. 3. 28 (pp x), 1 C. 6. 9, 1 Tim. 1. io a ; but along with 
Odpcros, ddperet, OapcretTe, which are constant, we find (in Paul. epp. 
and Hebr.), Oappelv 2 C. 5. 6, 8, 7. 16, 10. 15, H. 13. 6 (also 
mod. Gk. 6appu> \ but Apoc. Petr. 5 6ap<rrjcravT€S 7rapa0apcrvv€tv) ; for 

1 Also in R. 13. 3 for r<£ aya0cp tyyep there is a conjectural reading t<$ dyaOo- 
epyip, but the antithetical clause dXXa t£ /c<xk$ will not suit this. 

2 Elsewhere always eTrieucris, -tet/ceta. In e<r0tw, eadieis the analogy of the other 
parts of the verb prevented the fusion from taking place ; on a<peis from <i<pir)/j,L 
see § 23, 7. The vulgar forms ireiv and iryeta are discussed by [Herodian] 
Cram. An. Oxon. iii. 261, 251. "v. App. p. 307. 


the vulgar fxaKpav, puaKpoOev Lc. and Hebr. give 7r6ppa)(6€v) L. 14. 32, 
17. 12, 24. 28, H. 11. 13 (Mt.l5.8=Mc. 7. 6 O.T.; fta*c/>av ko.1 iroppu 
Earn. 20. 2). — Apart from these, there is hardly anything worthy of 
note. Fluctuation in the aspiration of consonants : cnr-crcf> (also 
fluctuate in Attic) in o-irvpk, <rcf>vpLs Mt. 15. 37 (o-c£- D), a 16. 10 
(o-0-BD), Mc. 8. 8 (cr</>- »A*D), 8. 20 (o-<£- D), A. 9. 25 (a-<£- «C, hiat 
D); o-</>dyyos D Mc. 15. 36 (not Mt. 27. 48; o-<£- is also Attic); 
<tt-<t0 : pLacrTos Ap. 1. 13 BCP, -cr#os K, /za£6s A (£ orig. = a-S, so 
still in N.T. "Afaros A. 8. 40 lh"125tf, so L. 11. 27 /xoxttol most mss., 
-o-0ot DFG 23. 29 (D*), but C /zafot (usage also fluctuates in Attic 
writers, Kiihner I 3 , i. 157). <S?6J3t]6 'pa is read L. 21. 11 BD for 
c£o/3?7Tpa ; this suffix takes the form sometimes of -Opov, sometimes of 
-rpov, Kiihner, ibid. ii. 271. 27. The ir in 'Kir^ia ('A<£<£ia, see 
§ 3, 11), Philem. 2, is aspirated, as in inscriptions of the regions 
(Phrygia, Caria) to which Appia belonged, where the name is fre- 
quent. 6 The Attic TravSoKeiov, iravSoKevs for -x^ iov j ~X e ^ ? (Lob. Phryn. 
307) occurs in L. 10. 34f. in a* or ***D*. In ovOels, prjdecs the 8 of oi'S(e), 
prj8(e) has united, contrary to rule, with the aspirate of ds to form (else- 
where = t + aspirate) ; these forms occur from the latter part of the 
Attic period onwards, in writers (Aristot.), on inscriptions, and on 
papyri, and so, too, in the N.T. (and lxx.) occasionally : firjOev 
A. 27. 33 kAB; ov$ev6s L. 22. 35 ABQT al., 2 C. 11. 8 »BMP ; 
ovOev L. 23. 14 kBT, A. 15. 9 BHLP, 19. 27 kABHP, 26. 26 «B, 
1 C. 13. 2 «ABCD C L (thus this spelling is by no means universal). 
Still i^ovOevetv is the prevalent form (as also in lxx. ; only in 
Mc. 9. 12 BD have -ScvqQy). W. Schm. § 5, 27, n. 62 (Herm. Mand. 
iv. 2. 1 ovOiv «* Sim. ix. 4. 6 ; Clem. Cor. i. 33. i 5 45. 7 p-qOapm, 
i.e. prj8e a/xws). 

8. Insertion and omission of consonants. — Aappdvw in Hellenistic 
Gk. retains in all forms and derivatives with the stem \-qf3 the p. of 
the present tense : JA^<£&p, Xrjpuj/is, 7rpoo-o)7ToX7)p7rrrjs etc., § 24, 
W.-Schm. § 5, 30. c The addition of /x in ip7rl(p)7rXr}pi, ipirL(p)irpr]pi 
is as variable in Attic as in Hellenistic Gk. (W.-Schm. ibid.) ; 
N.T. epTTLirXcov A. 14. 17 (with p. DEP), ZfATwrpaardai 28. 6 «* for 
-iripLTTpacrOai (iriirp. A ; elsewhere uncertainty about the //, only exists 
in the case of these compounds with ep-). — Insertion of cons, for 
euphony (dv-8-pos, peo-^p-JS-pca) takes place in many Semitic names 
( v Eo--8-pas, Map-/3-prj), in the N.T. 2a/>n/w, i.e. 2a//,-7r-o-wv, H. 11. 32 
('lo-rparjX D L. 2. 32, etc.). — or<j>vSp6v for a-^vpov A. 3. 7 »*AB*C* is 
unexplained. poyyiXdXos Mc. 7. 32 has no authority (poyiXdXos 
= 6 poyts XaXuv, and so with one 7 in «AB*DGK al.: also lxx. 
Is. 35. 6 : B corr - is the first to write yy). The excision of a 
consonant (accompanied by lengthening of a vowel) appears in 
yivopLai, ylvaxTKO) (Ionic and Hellenistic) ; also noticeable is dpKos 
— dpKTos Ap. 13. 2 (all uncials), found also in the lxx. and 
elsewhere in the late language (W.-Schm. § 5, 31). 

a b c v. App. p. 307. 



1. Words in -pa and those in -via, i.e. -va (§ 3, 8) follow the 
pattern of those in -cro-a, -XXa etc., i.e. they take in CD. ???, y 
instead of Att. as, a. (On the other hand those in -pa [fjfitpa], and 
in true -«x [dXfjOeia, fjLia] retain a throughout the sing.) I^ireipa, -rjs 
(A. 10. I etc.), fiax^prj (A. 12, 2), 7rXrjfifxvpr]s (L. 6. 48), 7rp<lpr}s 
(A. 27. 30), 2a7r<^etpa, -rj (5. 1), crvveiSvia, -rjs (5. 2). Similarly the 
lxx. and the papyri. 1 Exception : o-rdpa (adj.), cndpa L. 1. 36 all 

2. The inflection d, Gr. ds, etc. in proper names is not confined to 
words where a definite sound (e, 1, p) precedes, any more than it is 
in Attic. MdpOa, -as Jo. 11. 1 ; Av88a, -as (?) A. 9. 38 (cp. § 10, 5). 
To this corresponds the inflection of masc. names, N. as, Gr. d (as in 
Doric etc.), D. a, A. dv, V. d: 'lovSas, -a (Mc. 6. 3); 'AypLTriras, -a 
(A. 25. 23). Cp. § 10, 1. (On the other hand, -ta?, -lov : so 
Za^a/otas, -oi> L. 1. 40, 3. 2, beside "Ai/i/a and Kaidcjya ; 'HAioi', 1. 17 
[-a «B]j 4. 25, like Att. KaAAias, -ov.) 

3. Peculiarities. — Oea A. 19. 27 occurs in the formula r) p^ydXrj 
Oea "Aprefus (as in inscriptions); but ibid. 37 r) Oeos, which is the 
usual Att. form. — Oeos, voc. 6ek, Mt. 27. 46 is unclassical, occasion- 
ally in lxx.; cp. Synt. § 33, 4. 

4. Contracted words in Decl. I. and II. — Boppas, G. a, L. 13. 29, 

Ap. 21. 13 (Att. and later writers have /3opeas and poppas). The 
use of contracted words of Decl. II. is very limited : vovs and ttXovs 
are transferred to Decl. III. (§ 9, 3) ; x €l f JL ^PP ov J°- 18. 1 is no doubt 
from -ppos: ovtgvv Jo. 19. 36 O.T., but uncontracted ocrrea, L. 24. 39 
(D oWa) ; -€(ov Mt. 23. 27, Eph. 5. 30 T.R., H. 11. 2 2, 2 like XP V(T ^ V 
Ap. 2. i AC, -eovs 4. 4 «, -ea5 5.8 s (cp. Clem. Horn. x. 8 xP V(r€OV % 
upyvpeovs, xpvwea, dpyvpea, )(aA/<ea ; xvii. 3 Y^A/cca, xP^°~ ea ) ', "but this 
uncontracted form is in no passage read by all mss., and alternates 
with much more numerous examples of contraction in this adj. (and 
in the adjectives dwXovs, (WAcrus) in Ap. and elsewhere. Cp. 
W. Schmidt de Joseph, eloc. 491 f. Xpvo-dv Ap. 1. 13 K*AC is a gross 
blunder, wrongly formed on the model of xp vo ~ds 1. 12 (?). 

5. The so-called Attic second declension is wanting, with the 
exception of the formula tXecLs o~oi (v.l. iXeos) Mt. 16. 22 ; cp. cXeios 
v.l. -eos H. 8. 12 (Hermas, Sim. ix. 23. 4 ; iXeiov [-ews A] Clem. Cor. 
i. 2. 3). 'Avwyewi/ Mc. 14. 15 (-dyaiov, -(oyacov are the best attested 
readings), L. 22. 12 (-dyaiov, -wyatov, -ayzov, -ooyeov) is an incorrect 
form ; r) eW is non-existent, avyr) taking its place ; Xaos, vaos stand 
for Aews, i/€ws; r) aAwv, -covos for fj dXcos. 'H K<5s A. 21. 1, ace. Kc3 for 
Kwv (like late Attic), is declined in this case after the manner of 
alSus Decl. III. 

1 E.g. apotpris Berlin Pap. 328, ii. 32 ; 349, 8. 'Idvirjs 327, 15. Teyovvlrfs 
578, 17. Eldvelrjs (§ 3, 8) 405, 24.* 
1 * 2 v. App. p. 328. 

26 THIRD DECLENSION. [§ 7- 6. § 8. 1-3. 

6. Gender in Decl. II. — e and f) dXdf3ao-rpos, also to -ov, are recorded 
in Mc. 14. 3 (according to Att. it should be fj, but 6 dXdf3ao-Tos 
Aristoph., to -tov Menander). c O dxpivOos for fj Ap. 8. 1 1 (?) (« omits 
6). X) /2dYos in Mc. 12. 26 has overwhelming authority; fj is read in 
L. 20. 37, A. 7. 35 (Hellenistic, according to Moeris). e H Xrjvos 
Ap. 14. 19 f. as commonly, but, according to ABCP, rr}v Xrj vov ... rbv 
fteyav (cp. lxx., Gen. 30. 38). c O XlOos in all cases, even of the 
specially precious species of stones (where Attic has fj). C H Xtpos (as 
in old dialects, lxx.), L. 15. 14, A. 11. 28 (6 L. 4. 25). e H o-ra/xvo? 
H. 9. 4 (Attic: 6 Doric and lxx.). e O vaXos for fj Ap. 21. 18 (cp. 
XcOos ; 6 veXos Theophrast. de lapid. 49). 


1. Accusative singular in a and v. — The late-Greek forms in -ay for 
a (inscriptions, papyri : found quite early in dialects), on the analogy 
of Decl. I. are frequently found in mss., Mt. 2. 10 dcnepav K*C, 
Jo. 20. 25 x^P av A% A. 14. 12 Atai/ DEH al., dpo-evav Ap. 12. 3 A, 
etKovav 13. 14 A, fjbfjvav 22. 2 (Tisch. on H. 6. 19); they do not 
deserve to be adopted. In words in -rjs the accus. in -77 v is not 
unknown to Attic {rpif\py)v, Ai-jjuboo-Oevrjv), but occurs only in barytone 
words [paroxyt. or proparoxyt.] ; in the N.T. the following are 
incredible: do-^aXr^v (? accent) H. 6. 19 ACD, crvyyevrjv R. 16. 11 
AB*D* do-efS-qv E. 4. 5 KD*FG, vyirjv Jo. 5. 1 1 K*. — In barytones 
in -is with t S in the stem, the regular Attic accus. is ~iv, and so 
too in the N.T. x&P LV e ^ c - are the usual forms : but x^P lTa A. 24. 

27 (-ti/ tf*EL), 25. 9 A, Jd. 4 AB, Hellenistic according to Moeris 
(papyri). 1 Cp. i<Xei8a L. 11. 52 (lxx.; Attic has kX&v and so Ap. 
3. 7, 20. 1, and also D in Luke, but according to Justin we should 
read in Ap. rds kXzls, infra 2). 

2. Accusative plural (assimilation to the nominative plural). — 
The old termination (v)s in vowel stems (tovs fiorpvs, tovs fiovs) has 
disappeared in Hellenistic Gk., and these words are inflected with 
as: Mt. 14. 17 l^Ovas, Jo. 2. 14 fioas. But kXcls — kXziv — rds KXeis, 
Ap. 1. 18 (KXdSas By — For -as we have -€5 in the mss. (accus. = 
noni: old dialects and late Gk. 2 ) in the case of reo-o-apes (§ 6, 1), 
A. 27. 29 «, Jo. 11. 17 nA, Ap. (4. 4), 7. 1 A twice, P once, 9. 14 ** 
(so still more often in lxx.). So also we have by assimilation 
(like at and rds 77-0 Acts, Tpu)peis) ol and rovs /^ao-tXels in Hellenistic 
Gk., and this accus. plur. is regular in N.T. for all words in -evs. 

3. Relation of the nominative to the cases (inflection with or 
without consonant). — The inflection -as, -aos = ws, as yfjpas, -us, Kepas, 
-cos, has almost disappeared. Tfjpas, dat. yfjpet in L. 1. 36 (as in 
Ionic : so usually in lxx., where also the gen. yrjpovs occurs, as in 
Clem. Cor. i. 63. 3; ibid. 10. 7 yfjpei, v.l. -a). Kepas, repas take r 
(as in Attic and always in Hellenistic Gk. repara, repdroyv ace. to 
Moeris): KepaTa Ap. 13. I, repara Mt. 24. 24. We have only 
Kpeas and plur. Kpea E. 14. 21, 1 C. 8. 13 (other cases wanting). 

1 2 v. App. p. 328. a v. App. p. 307. 

§ 8. 3-6.] THIRD DECLENSION. 2 J 

There is most attestation for the consonantal inflection with v for 
all cases of the comp. in -cov : exceptions are almost confined to the 
Acts (irXetovs nom. or ace. A. 13. 31, 19. 32, 21. 10, 23. 13, 21, 
24. 11, 25. 6, 14: but -ves, -^as 27. 12, 20, 28. 23) and John (/xet^ 
X -01/a 1. 51, eXdo-cro) 2. 10, /xet^w ABE al. -o)v, D -ova 5. 36, IXdoro-u) 
2. 10, a few MSS. -o-crtov or -0-0-01/, 7rAetovs 4. 41, elsewhere Mt. 26. 53 
irXeto) or -ous). — On the other hand the 8 is omitted not only in 
vrj<TT€L<s Mt. 15. 22, Mc. 8. 3, wrongly written vr)cms — the vulgar 
nom. was vrjo-r^s, [Herodian] Cramer, An. Ox. iii. 248, hence 
vrjerreis like dXrjOeis (although the so-called Herodian speaks of 
declining like the 1st declension) — but also in epas (ace.) Tit. 3. 9 
tf c AD al. (epiv K*DE al., but in the middle of words that are clearly 
plurals), G-. 5. 20 (nom. with v.l. epls sing.), 2 C. 12. 20 (ditto), cp. 
v.l. in 1 C. 3. 3, 1 Tim. 6. 4; side by side with epiSes 1 C. 1. 11 all 
mss. (e/oets ace. in Clem. Cor. i. 35. 5). — Assimilation of the nom. to 
the oblique cases takes place in Hellenistic Gk. in words in -is, -ivos 
when iv is substituted for is (piv,, and so in N.T., r) uStv 
1 Th. 5. 3 (dKTtv Apoc. Petr. 7). 

4. Open and contracted forms. — 'Opeuv Ap. 6. 15 (Hermas, Sim. 
ix. 4. 4 etc.; Clem. Cor. i. 10, 7), and x eL ^^ v H. 13. 15 (from 
lxx. Hos. 14. 3) show the widespread tendency, which is 
apparently not wholly foreign to Attic, to leave this case uncon- 
tracted in words in os. (But ercov A. 4. 22, 7. 30 etc.) On the 
other hand we have 7ttjxvs, iry]yfiv for 7rrjx€*»v Jo. 21. 8 (ewv A), 
Ap. 21. 17 ; x tffMo-vs (a barytone adj. in vs : fiaOvs etc. are never so 
inflected) has fjfjLLo-ovs for -eos Mc. 6. 23 (Apoc. Petr. 27), r)pto-r) 
L. 19. 8 rn (I) 2 ), with the var. lect. i)piQ-(t)ia kBLQ, rd rjfjuo-v 
AKA(D*). c H/ztcreta would be a not impossible assimilation to i\ 
rjjjLioreia ; rjfxicrovs and -err] are attested as Hellenistic. 2 'YytTys, vyir) 
Jo. 5. 11, 15 etc. are Hellenistic (Attic has vyid as well) 

5. Genitive -eos and -€«s. fiaQews L. 24. 1 (on preponderant 
evidence), and irpakus kBKL 1 P. 3. 4 are mistakes of the popular 
language (see Lobeck, Phr. 247) for -eos (otherwise there is no 
instance of the gen. of the adj. in -vs). 

6. Peculiarities. — 'Salt 7 in Attic is ol (L\e$, in N.T. to #Xas> 
Mt. 5. 13 twice (aAa [cp. to yaAa] K twice, D once), Mc. 9. 50 
twice (aAa once K*, twice LA), L. 14. 34 (aAa N*D), no doubt derived 
from tovs aAa?, and inflected like repas : aAa™ Col. 4. 6. This form is 
also characteristic of the common language, according to Herodian ii. 
716, Lentz. (In Mc. 9„ 49 D has aXC in a clause from Levit. 2. 13 
which is wanting in kBLA; ibid. 50, ace. aAa K*A*BDLA, dXas 
tt c A 2 CN al.) — Navs only occurs in A. 27. 41 rr)v vavv (literary 
word = vulgar to ttXoIov). — "Opvig 'a hen' nom. sing. L. 13. 34 (cp» 
Doric gen. opviyos) ] z for 'bird' N.T. has opveov Ap. 18. 2 etc. 
(also Barn. 10. 4, Clem. 1 Cor. 25. 2, Herm. Sim. ix. 1, 8). — 
2v77€vt's, -eus, dat. plur. -evo-t (like yovels, -evo-i) Mc. 6. 4 (-eo-iv N 3 * 
[om. k*]AB 2 CD* al.), L. 2. 44 B*LXAA; according to [Herodian] 
Cram. An. Ox. iii. 246 others even said -veto-i. 

1 2 3 v. App. p. 328. 

28 METAPLASMUS. [§ 9. 1-3. 


1. Fluctuation between neuter and masculine in Declension II. — 

Astirvos for -ov is only a v.l. in L. 14. 16, Ap. 19. 9 (B), 17. Aeayzos 
has plural Seer fid (old) L. 8. 29, A. 16. 26, 20. 23, and &E07W (old) 
Ph. 1. 13 (without distinction). Zvyds 'yoke' (in use since Polyb.) 
never (vyov. OefieXiov, plur. -a A. 16. 23 (Horn, lxx.j Herm. Sim. 
ix. 14. 6; Attic, according to Moeris), elsewhere o Oe^Xcos 
1 C. 3. 11 f., 2 Tim. 2. 19, Clem. Cor. i. 33. 3 etc. (strictly sc. XlOos ; 
Attic). c O vwTos E. 11. 10 O.T. quot. (class, to vQtov). Stros, plur. 
<rlra A. 7. 12 HP (Att. and lxx.; vnia read by «AB etc. does not 
suit the sense). 2tc£8iov has plur. <rTa8ia Jo. 6. 19 tf*D, and o-raSdovs 
tf corr ABL al. : the latter also occurs in L. 24. 13 and Ap. 21. 16 
AB al. with v.l. -tW (both plurs. are Attic). 

2. Fluctuation between Declensions I. and II. — Compound sub- 
stantives with apx^cv in their second half are formed with -ap\os in 
Attic, in (dialectic and) Hellenistic Gk. more often with -dpxiis 
(Decl. I.), Kiihner, i. 3, i. 502. So in N.T. Wvapxqs, waTptapx^s, 
7roAtra/5^s, rerpaapyris (' Ao~ lapx&v Acts 19. 31), also eKdTOVTapxrjS 
centurio Mt. 8. 13 (~x^ K b UA), and in the majority of places in the 
Acts ; but x L ^ a PX 0S tribunus always, eKarovrapxos A. 22. 25 and 
often (with much variety of reading about the vowel); o-TpaToire- 
8apxos or -rjs 28 16, an addition of the f3 text (om. nAB). 1 
Svo-€VT€piov A. 28. 8 according to Moeris is Hellenistic for -pta, 
Lob. Phryn. 518. *H X os, 6 (in L. 21. 25 to, see 3), L. 4. 37, A. 2. 2, 
H. 12. 19, similarly stands for rjxv (Moeris). 

3. Fluctuation between Declensions II. (I.) and III. — The exx. 
of interchange of -09 masc, Decl. II., and -09 neut., Decl. III., have 
somewhat increased in number, in comparison with those in the 
classical language. The Attic o gXcos becomes to 'iXeos in LXX. and 
N.T. always (exc. Mt. 9. 13 eXeov C 3 EFG etc.: 12. 7 'iXeov EC etc., 
23. 23 rbv ZXeov CAAn : H. 4. 16 eXeov C b D c EL : Tit. 3. 5 rbv 
■eXeov D C KL), with gen. eXeovs, dat. eXeet (the original forms, if we 
may judge from the old derivative iXeetvos, cp. <f>aeivos from <f>dos, 
and the compound vrjXerjs). e O £f]X.os is the class, and also the usual 
N.T, form; to {. (nom. or ace.) 2 C. 9. 2 *B, Ph. 3. 6 K*ABD*FG, 
with gen. {rjXovs A. 5. 17 only B* (Clem. Cor. i. 6. 1, 2, 9. 1 etc. 
to; 5. 2, 4, 5 etc. 6). "Hxovs L. 21. 25 for r;x ov ( see 2). e O 6d}xf3os 
(ancient) for to L. 4. 36 D (0. /xeyas), cp. A. 3. 10 Odfifiov C. To 
-ttXovtos (nom. or ace. sing.) 2. C. 8. 2 n*BCP, E. 1. 7, 2. 7, 3. 8, 16, 
Ph. 4. 19, Col. 1. 27 (also o ttX. »), 2. 2 (neut. tf*ABC), is attested on 
preponderant or very good evidence; elsewhere (even E. 1. 18) 
o 7rX., and always gen. ttXovtov. To o-kotos (cp. o-Koretvos) is 
universally found (earlier 6 and to) : in H. 12. 18 o-kotco is a wrong 
reading for fo<£<j). Fluctuation between -os neut. and -a, -77 Decl. I. 
is rarer: to Styos (Attic; which has also yj Stif/a) 2 C. 11. 27 Stipei 
(8ty v B*); to x/?/co9 2 1 C. 15. 54 f. O.T. quot., S7, Mt. 12. 20 O.T. 

1 On the usage of Josephus cp. W. Schmidt, Jos. elocut. 485 ff. 

2 The usual lxx. form : Lob. Phryn. 647. 

§9-3. § io. 1-2.] PROPER NAMES. INDECLINABLE 29 

quot., Herm. Mand. xii. 2. 5 ; i) vlktj 1 Jo. 5. 4. NoOs and irXovs 
(the latter A. 27. 9) are declined like ftovs : gen. voos, dat. vot, as 
also in Herm. Sim. ix. 17. 2 (cp. § 7, 4). 1 e H &\«v, -covos Mt. 3. 12, 
L. 3. 17, for 07 aAws, -w (cp. § 7, 5). The dat. is formed from 
Decl. III. in words that in their other cases are neuters of Decl. II.: 
SaKpvov (Ap. 7. 17, 21. 4) - SaKpva - 8dKpv<riv L. 7. 38, 44 (also in 
Attic occasionally ; 8aKpv is an old form occurring in poetry) 1 
o-afiPaTOV - vafSPara - <rd(3Pa<riv always Mt. 12. I etc., except Mt. 
12. 12 where B has o-a/^arots (Lachm.). — Consonantal stem of 
Decl. III. for -o- stem of Decl. II. : Kar^yup (on the model of prjroyp) 
Ap. 12. 10 only in A for Karfjyopos (nBCP as elsewhere in N.T.). 2 


1. The Hebrew personal names of the O.T., when quoted as such,, 
remain with few exceptions unaltered and indeclinable : 'ASdfx, 
'A/3/ma/x, 'IaKto/3, ^apato, AavtS etc. The exceptions are mainly 
nominatives in n~, which are represented by the termination -as and 
declined according to Decl. I. (gen. -a and -ov, see § 7, 2) : 'lovSas 
Mt. 1. 2 f.; Ovptas, gen. -ov ibid. 6; ; E£e/aas, 'Hcratas etc. (but 'A/Std. 
[as LXX.] ibid. 7 nom. ace, L. 1. 5 gen.). Other exceptions are :. 
Mavao-o-f] Mt. 1. 10 ace, Mavacrcrrjs nom., cp. inf. 3 (Mavacro-fj nom. 
« b B) ; TaFi/?Js and 'lajjL/Sprjs 2 Tim. 3. 8 ; Aems, -et? nom. H. 7. 9 
N C BG*, the remaining mss. -t (et) : cp. inf. 2. SoXo^wv is declined 
either with gen. -uvos (therefore nom. -/xwi/), so Mt. 1. 6 -/iwi^a (but 
N* -p.Mv indecl.), 12. 42, and elsewhere: or -mvtos (like Hevo^uv, 
therefore nom. -/xwv) : A. 3. n -/xoWos (DE -jjlojvos), 5. 12 (-p&vos- 
BDEP) ; so also lxx., unless, as usually happens, the word remains 
indeclinable. Itjo-ovs Josua H. 4. 8. Mtovcrijs (so, according to the 
best evidence, with lxx. and Josephus, instead of Moxr. of the 
ordinary mss.), gen. always -em as if from -evs, dat. -el Mt. 17. 4 
«BD al. (others -% Mc. 9. 4 AB 3 DE etc., ibid. 5 kABCDE etc. 
(nearly all), and so elsewhere with constant variation in the MSS. 
between -ei and -r\\ ace. -ea only in L. 16. 29, elsewhere -r\v 
(A. 6. 11, 7. 35, 1 C. 10. 2, H. 3. 3). The latter inflection : -^5, -?}, 
-27, -^v (cp. inf. 3) is that prevalent in the lxx. 3 

2. The same old Hebrew names, if employed as proper names of 
other persons of the N.T. period, are far more susceptible to 
Hellenisation and declension. The Hellenising is carried out : (a) 
by appending -os ; 'Id^/Sos always, "Aya/3-os A. 11. 28, 21. 10: (b) 
in words that in their Greek pronunciation would end in a vowel, by 
appending -s to the nom., -v to the ace: so 'Itjo-ovs, 'Irjcrovv (cp. 1), 
Aevis (also written -eis; therefore l) Mc. 2. 14 (ace. -iv, indecl. tf*A 

1 So also pods, gen. poos, in later Greek: cp. W.-Schm. § 8, 11, note 7 (Cramer, 
An. Ox. iii. 248). 

2 Ibid. § 8, 13 : it looks as if the original nom. was taken for a gen. : the late 
form di&Kiov for Bi&kovos is parallel. 

3 In Josephus Niese and Naber write -ios (hardly a possible inflection ; in the 
MSS. -ews is a strongly attested variant), -ei, -r\v in their text ; -ews (with v.L 
-£os) is found as early as Diodor. Sic. 34. 1. 3. W.-Schm. § 10, 5. 


al), L. 5. 27 (ace. -iv, indecl. D), 29 (nom. ~ts, indecl. D) ; to which 
must be added the nom. in -as, see 1 ; for the inflection vide inf. 3: 
(c) in names in -an, by the substitution of s for v in the nom., so that 
the inflection follows that of 'lovBas : "A.vva<s L. 3. 4, A. 4. 6, 
Jo. 18. 13, 24 "J^STT (Joseph. "Ai/av-os) : 'IwvdOas A. 4. 6 D, 1 a name 
which in Joseph, is still further Hellenised to 'luvdOrjs : so N.T„ 
'Wi^s (§ 3, 10) ^liv or 'lioavdv (L. 3. 27 in the genealogy of Christ), 
gen. -ov, 2 dat. -y(-ei L. 7. 18, 22 kAB or B*[L], Mt. 11. 4 DA, 
Ap. 1. 1 «*, cp. Mcow-ct), ace. -rjv. Josephus also makes Kcuvas out of 
Kaivdv and Na#as out of Na0av. The common name 'IwdV^s is also 
abbreviated into 'Ion/a (Syr. **5^) lxx. 2 (4) Kings 25. 23, and so 
Mt. 16. 17 2t/xo>v Bapto>va = 2. (6 *>tos) 'Icoai/ov Jo. 1. 42 ('Itova 
AB 3 al., Syr.), 21. 15 ff. ('Iwva AC corr - al., Syr. Sin. -pi, a form 
which also stands for the prophet Jonah L. 11. 29 etc.); 'WaV or 
-a/* (^Br, Syr.) is found in L. 3. 30 (in the genealogy of Christ). 
By a similar abbreviation tjOl" 1 became JiDV Twerps, gen. -t^tos 
(inf. 3) Mc. 6. 3 BDLA ('Ioxrr^ «, 'IaxW? AC), 15. 40, 47 (with 
similar v.L): cp. the var. lect. to Mt. 13. 55, 27. 56, A. 1. 23, 4. 36; 
in this name the evidence preponderates for the full Hebrew form 
without alteration, vide inf. (d) The Hellenisation is carried furthest 
in 2t/4(oi/, -coi/05 = 2^/xecoi/ (this form occurs for Peter in A. 15. 14 in 
James' speech, 2 P. 1. 1 [lifivv B] : for others in A. 13. 1, L. 2. 25 
etc.): the pure Greek name with a similar sound is substituted for 
the Hebrew name, after a fashion not unknown to the Jews of the 
present day, just as Tacrw (A. 17. 5 etc.) is substituted for Jesus, 
and perhaps KvoYas for Xo-ufas (L. 8. 3 according to the Latin cod. I). 
On the other hand, the following, though employed in this way, 
remain unaltered and indeclinable : 'I<ixrfj<j> generally (vide sup.), 
ISaOavarjX (also the names of the angels Mi^a^A. [Max. B] and 
Ta/3pirjX), Mavarjv A. 13. i. Similarly the woman's name 'EAta-a/5eV: 
whereas D"H/2 sometimes remains as Mapiap,, esp. for the mother of 
Christ, and sometimes is Hellenised to Mapta (Mapta/4/477 in Joseph.), 
with great diversity of reading in the mss. (gen. Maplas Mt. 1. 16, 
18, 2. 11 etc.; ace. Ma/ua/4 1. 20 [-lav BL] : in chaps. 27 and 28 the 
form -la for the nom. has most support in the case of the other 
Maries; in L Mapta/x 1. 27, 30, 34, 37, 39 etc., but ttJs Maptas 41, 
^ Mapta 2. 19 tfBD [D has also frequently elsewhere nom. -a, dat. -a 
i.e. -a, ace. -av] ; Paul in R. 16. 9 has Mapta/4, an unknown lady, in 
ABCP -tai/). 3 The following are declinable without further addition : 
"Awa ren (nom. L. 2. 36) and MdpOa Syr. ^T/2 (gen. -a?, see 
§ 7, 2) ; the following are Hellenised by the addition of a (df): 
'Ia)ai/(j/)a Syr. vriv, ^ovo-awa Syr. *iv5*w5 (L. 8. 3, 24. 10), and there 

is a similar addition of 77 in 2aAw/x?/ Syr. D1P"&5 Mc. 15. 40, 16. 1. 

1, lo)vd0as appears already on an Egyptian papyrus of the 3rd cent. B.C., 
Flinders Petrie Pap. ii., p. 23: 'A7ro\\c&>«w... [7rap€ir']i8r}fjiov, ds Kal (rvpiarl 'Icovddas 

2 'lu&vov (v.L 9 I<aavav) in lxx. 2 Chr. 28. 12. 3 Cp. W.-Schm. § 10, 1, note 1. 


3. The declension of Hebrew masc. proper names whose stem 
ends in a long vowel (with the exception of those in -ias), and of 
the similar Greek or Graeco-Roman names which are formed by 
abbreviation (§ 29), follows the same pattern on the whole for all 
vowels, and is consequently known as the "mixed" declension. 
Three cases (G.D.V.) exhibit the pure stem (the datives in a, ry, <» 
being in our spelling extended by an 1 mute) ; the nom. in all cases 
has s, the ace. generally v, but this is often wanting in LXX. and 
N.T. with the t)(l) and o> stems : Mavacro-rjs, ace. -rj, vide sup. 1 (so 
LXX., e.g. 2 (4) Kings 20. 21, 21. 1, 2 Chron. chap. 33) : Aems, vide 
sup 1, 2: AttoAAws, ace. AttoAAw A. 19. t (-ov A 2 L, 'AireXXrjv »*, 
§ 6, 2), cp. K£ ace. § 7, 5, 1 C. 4. 6 (-ov »*AB), Tit. 3. 13 (-ov *D b H, 

-ova FG). Exx. (a) Bapa/3/3ds, Bapvd/3as, 7 lov8as, Zrjvas (from Zrjvo- 
Swpos), 2tAa§ ( = 2t Aovavos). (ft) (Mai/ao-<ri}s, vide Slip.) 'AttcAAtJs 
R. 16. 10, ace. -r)v (as in A. 19. 1 », vide sup.). The gen. of £r^& 
names of this class, in classical Greek^-ov, is unrepresented in N.T. 
(c) Aevts, vide sup. 2. (d) Irjo~ovs, -ov, -ov, -ovv, -ov. (e) 'AiroXXios 
(from ATroAAovtos). In extra-Biblical Greek besides this declension 
of such names there is found a second, in which there is a similar 
nom. in -s, but the stem for the remaining cases is extended by the 
addition of a consonant (usually 8, in Egypt and in the Cyrenaica r), 
e.g. 'Amras, -a8os, 'Ep/x^s, -j}8os (Inscr. of Arsinoe in C. I. G. 5321 
'Irjo-ovs o-ovtos, cp. Ptolemais 5289): the single N.T. example of this 
declension is 'lucres, -t)tos, sup. 2. 

4. Roman proper names. — There need only be noticed Agrippa 
*Ayp'nriras, -a : Aquila 'AkvXcis : Clemens, Crescens, Pudens, gen. -entis 
= (KA^/x/qs) -evros Ph. 4. 3, K/o^ovcqs 2 Tim. 4. 10, Iloixfys (-evros) 21. 
The w of the nom., which was hardly pronounced, is often absent 
from Latin inscriptions. 

5. Names of places, mountains, rivers. — In this category it is the 
usual practice in by far the majority of cases for non-Greek names 
to remain un-Hellenised and undeclined, with the exception, of 
course, of prominent place-names, which were already known to 
the Greeks at an earlier period, such as Typos ; 2t8wv, -wvos ; "Afaros 
Asdod (cp. § 6, 7) A. 8. 40 ; Aa/zao-Kos etc. and (river-name) 
'lopSdvrjs, -ov. The Hellenisation is well marked, a new etymology 
(lepos, ~26Xvfioi) being given, in the case of 'lepoo-oXvpia, -wv, a form 
which is employed in the KT. alongside of Tepovo-aA^/x, (in the 
latter there is no good reason for writing the rough breathing, 
§ 4, 4 ; Mc. and John (Gosp.) always have 'Iepoo-., and so Mt. exc. 
in 23. 37 : 'lepovcr. is always the form in Ap., Hebr., and in Paul, 
except in the narrative of G. 1. 17 £, 2. 1 : L. gives both forms, 
but Tepova-. rarely in his Gospel. 1 Other exceptions are : Erfiwia, 
gen. -as, ace. -av Jo. 11. 1, Mc. 11. 12, Jo. 12. 1, Mc. 11. 11 etc. 
(but Mt. 21. 17, Mc. 11. I B* els B^Oavia, L. 19. 29 K*BD* els 
Br]6<f>ayr) kcu BrjOavta) : ToX-yoGa, Me. 15. 22 rbv YoXyoOav roirov 
(ToXyoOa ACDE al): To'jxoppa, -ov Mt. 10. 15 (-as CDLMP), -as 
2 P. 2. 6, cp. inf. 6 (r) Topi6ppa) : A*88a, gen. Av88rjs A. 9, 38 
B 3 EHLP, -as K*B*C, -a indecl. » C A (which is harsh in the con- 

1 lxx. 'lepovo-., except in 2, 3, 4 Mace, and Job. See W.-Schm. § 10, 3. 


nection eyyvs ovo-rjs A. rrj 'lowTrr)) ; elsewhere the ace. is AvSSa, ibid. 
3 2 ? 35 (~ av CEHLP), either as neut. plur. or as indecl. (?) : * 2dp€irra. 
ace. L. 4. 26 (-W]/ gen. lxx. Obad. 20): rbv 2ap«va (Ao-o-ap.) 'The 
plain 7 'p'Ttt?; Decl. III. or (with Aramaic -a) indecl. (?) : 268o|i.a 
dYlD (therefore Hellenised), -g>v Mt. 10. 15, 11. 24, L. 17. 29, 2 P. 2. 6; 
-01s Mt. 11. 23 (Mc. 6. ii Text. Kea, an insertion from Mt.), 
L. 10. 12 (so earlier in lxx.). On the other hand the following 
e.g. are unaltered and indecl. : BrjOXeep,, BrjOcfrayrj, Ka<f>apvaov/A, 
Alvtov Jo. 3. 23, 2aAt/x ibid., 2iwi/; (mountain) 2ti/a. (brook) KeS/owy 
Jo. 18. 1 (tov xet/xa/>pov to£ K. correctly AS; other mss. are corrupt 
with T<ov KeSpwv, tov KeSpov ; Josephus declines tov KeSptovos). 
'EXatwv, Mount of Olives, as a Greek rendering cannot be indecl.; 
therefore, as we elsewhere have to opos t«v lAatwv, we must also read 
opos (ace.) to KaXovfxevov iXac&v (not ; E/Wcoi/) L. 19. 29, 21. 37 : all 
mss. give a wrong inflection in A. 1. 12 tov kclXov/jl€vov 'EAciiwi/os 
for lAatwi/ : cp. § 33, l. 2 

6. On the declension of place-names. — Double declension as in 
class. Greek is seen in Neai/ irokiv A. 16. 11 ; therefore also read 
'lepa iroXei Col. 4. 13. Instances of metaplasmus : Decl. I. fern, 
sing., Decl. II. neut. plur. — Avo-Tpa, ace. -dv A. 14. 6, 21, 16. i y 
but dat. -ol$ 14. 8, 16. 2 : GvaTetpa ace. Ap. 1. 11 tf, -a*/ ABC, gen. 
-u)v A. 16. 14, dat. -ols Ap. 2. 18 (B -prj, § 7, 1), 24 (k c -/)#, B -pats), 
cp. AuSSa, supra 5. Decl. III. and Decl. I. confused. — 2aA.a/uv, dat. 
-Zv l A. 13. 5, but -ivTj kAEL, cp. (W.-Schm. § 10, 5) gen. 2aXa/xtV^? 
in Suid. 'EVt^avto? (cod. A), Salamina(m) Latt. ap. Acts ibid, like 
Justin ii. 7. 7, Salaminae insulae xliv. 3. 2, Salaminam (cp. the new 
formations in romance languages, Tarragona, Cartagena, Narbonne). 

7. Gender. — In place-names the fern, is so much the rule that we 
have not only 1) 'lepovo-aXrjp. (A. 5. 28 etc.), but even wao-a "Iepoo-6- 

Xvfia Mt. 2. 3 (on A. 16. 12 <f?iXi7T7rovs, i\ns eo-Tt . . . 7roAt9, see 
§ 31, 2). The masc. 6 2fcA,axx/x (the spring and the pool) in L. 13. 4, 
Jo. 9. 7, 11 is explained by the interpretation added in Jo. 9. 7 
direcTTa A/xe vos. 3 

8. Of indeclinable appellatives there are only a few : (tov Koppav 
Mt. 27. 6 B*, correctly tov Kop/3avav ; indecl. in another sense 
Mc. 7. 11, where it is introduced as a Hebr. word): jxdvva, to 
(Ap. 2. 17 tov pL.): ard<rxa, to (L. 2. 4r tov tt.) : (ora/rav gen. for -va 
2 O. 12. 7 tf c al.; more a proper name than an appellative) : o-iKepcL 
ace. L. 1. 15 (indecl. in lxx.): rj oval Ap. 9. 12, 11. 14 (like rf 
OXlxpts etc.: also used as a subst. elsewhere, lxx. and 1 C. 9. 16,, 
see W.-Gr.). 


1. Adjectives in -os, -t\ (-a), -ov and -os, -ov. — (a) Compound adj. 
V &pyrj (^py os = d-epy 6s) 1 Tim. 5. 13, Tit. 1. 12 (Epimenides), Ja. 

1 There is a similar fluctuation in Josephus, W.-Schm. ibid. 2 v. App. p. 329. 
3 Josephus has tj 2., sc. 707717, B. J. v. 12. 2, vi. 8. 5, hut Ate%pt rod 2. ii. 16. 
2, vi. 7. 2. 

§ ii. 1-3.] ADJECTIVES. 33 

2. 20 BC* (v.l. veKpd) ; Att. apybs yw?/ Phryn. Lob. 104 f. l H avro- 
/xaTT) Mc. 4. 28 (not unclass.). C H irapaOaXao-cria Mt. 4. 13 (tt)v 
7rapada\dcr<TLOv D, irapd OdXacrcrav tt*), but ^ irapdXios L. 6. 17 ; 
these compounds in -10s admit of both forms, (b) Uncompounded 
adj. e H ^fios always (Att. -pos and -/x?y). e H &roijjios Mt. 25. 10 
(A -fmi), -prj 2 0. 9. 5, 1 P. 1. 5 (Att. -/xos and -/^). 'H alwvtos 
is the usual form as it is in Att.; 4a 2 Th. 2. 16 (-tov FG), H. 9. 12, 
often as a v.l. e H /Se/Sata always (Att. -a and -os). e H kgV|uos (Att. 
-la) 1 Tim. 2. 9 K*AD corr - al.; v.l. 4m. e H jjidratos and 4 (as in Att.). 
C H 6jioios ? Ap. 4. 3. e H 60-ios 1 Tim. 2. 8 (-ta Att. and lxx.). *H 
oupdvtos L. 2. 13 (v.l. ovpavov), A. 26. 19 (Att. 4a). In other cases 
the N.T. is in agreement with the ordinary grammar. 

2. To crvyyevrjs L. 1. 36 has the fern, fj o-vyyevts for Att. -rjs (Clem. 
Horn. xii. 8: Phryn. Lob. 451 : Cramer, An. Ox. iii. 247 ; cp. evyevi- 
6W yvvacKiov Clem. Eom. Epit. ii. 144), whereas strictly this fern, 
only belonged to words in -t?/s, -tov, and to those in -evs (/^ao-tAt's). 

3. Comparison. — The absorption of the category of duality into 
that of plurality (cp. §§ 2, 1, and 13, 5), occasioned also the dis- 
appearance from the vulgar language of one of the two degrees 
of comparison, which in the great majority of cases (cp. inf. 5) was 
the superlative, the functions of which were taken over by the 
comparative. 1 The only instances of a superl. in -raros in the N.T. 
are a/cpt^eo-raTos A. 26. 5 (in literary language, the speech of Paul 
before Agrippa, § 2, 4) and dyiuraros Jd. 20, the latter being used 
in an elative sense. The remaining superlatives are in -lo~tos, 
and are generally employed in intensive [elative] sense, and in some 
cases have quite lost their force : €\dx«rTos perexiguus passim 2 (as 
a true superl., either due to the literary language or corrupt reading 
in 1 C. 15. 9: for which eXaxio-rorepos occurs in E. 3. 8, inf. 4): 
ffSurra, 2 C. 12. 9, 15, A. 18. 3 D ('gladly, 7 'very gladly'): icpdno-Te 
m an address L. 1. 1 etc. : fxeyto-Tos jpermagnus 2 P. L 4: irXeto-Tos 
Mt. 11. 20, 21. 8, cp. § 44, 4 : 1 C. 14. 27 (to TrXeio-rov ' at most 7 ): 3 
ws Tdxio-Ta A. 17. 15 (literary language, a true superl.) : tt|*urros 
passim : fryyurra D Mc. 6. 36 (Joseph, passim : Clem. Cor. i. 5. 1). 
The most frequent superlative which still remains is (fxaXXov-) 
fidXto-ra (Acts, Pauline epp., 2 Peter : still there are no more than 
twelve instances in all). 4 Cp. Synt. § 44, 3. 

1 The usage of the Ep. of Barnabas agrees with that of the N.T. On the 
other hand in Hernias, although his Greek is the unadulterated language of 
ordinary speech, superlatives in -tcltos and -kttos are quite common with intensive 
[elative] sense, while he also uses the comparative for the superlative proper. 
This (Roman) form of the kolvt} thus held the same position in this respect as 
the Italian of to-day, which does not distinguish between comp. and superl., 
but has preserved the forms in -issimo, etc. , in intensive sense. 

2 Hermas, Mand. v. 1. 5 tov iXaxLcrrov d^/ivdlov ' the little bit of wormwood/ 
in a preceding passage (ibid.) aipivdiov jxiKpbv \iav. A similar use occurs as 
early as Aeschin. iii. 104. 

3 Herm. Sim. viii. 5. 6, 10. 1, ix. 7. 4 to 7r\eio~Toi> ixipos^ but viii. 1. 6 to 
TcXetov fi. 

4 A popular substitute for fiaWov, /xaXicrTa as also for irKdwv and ttXcIo-tos is 
supplied by the adjective ir€pi<r<r6s ('superabundant,' 'ample') together with 
its adverb and comparative. rd irepKrabv to6tuj> Mt. 5. 7 = to ir\£ov r. (cp. 


34 ADJECTIVES. [§ ii. 4-5. 

4. Special forms of the comparative. — For comp. of d-yaOos we 
never have a/xetVcov, fieXnov as an adv. only in 2 Tim. 1. 18 (4wv 
Herm. Vis. iii. 4. 3, 7. 1); Kpet'crow (-ttw, § 6, 7) only in Pauline 
epp., Hebrews, and Pet. ('more excellent' or 'mightier/ 'of higher 
standing,' opp. to eXdrruv H. 7. 7); the vulgar ayaOurepos (Herm. 
Mand. viii. 9. 1) is never found in the KT. 1 For comp. of kcikos, 
Xetpwi/ 'worse' is frequent; to fjcrcrov is opp. to to Kpelorcrov 1 C. 
11. 17; rjcro-ov adv. 'less' (of degree) 2 C. 12. 15. 'EAacrow 
deterior is the opposite to Kpeuro-wv Jo. 2. 10, H. 7. 7, vide supra: 
or, as in Attic, to /xetfwi/ R. 9. 12 O.T. quot.; adv. e'AaTTov 'less' 
(of number) 1 Tim. 5. 9 (puKporepos is ' smaller ' as in Attic). Tdx«>v 
(Hellenistic, B rax^ov) is the constant form, not OcLttov (Att.) or 
-o-crov, unless the latter is to be read for ao-o-ov in A. 27. 13 (a 
literary word, cp. in Clem. Gor. i. 65. 1 the juxtaposition of the 
cultured phrase oVcos Sdrrov with conj., and the vulgar els to rdx^ov 
with inf.). 'EXaxtorTOTcpos 'the lowest of air (see 3) is correctly 
formed according to the rules of the common language ; /xetfoYepos 
3 Jo. 4 a shows an obscured sense of the idea of the comp. in 
jxeifav, but is not without analogies in the older language (e.g. dfxetvo- 
Tepos). AnrXoTcpov Mt. 23. i^ — duplo magis (Appian also has 
cWAoVepa tovtcov = SiirXdcria t. Proem. 10), whereas airXovcrrepos 
shows the Attic formation of such comparatives. 

5. Adjectival comparative (and superlative) of adverbs. — The 
superl. irpcoTos has been retained where the comp. wporepos in the 
sense of 'the first of two' has disappeared, so Jo. 1. 15, 30 irpuTos 
fiov, A. 1. 1 tot/ 7TpQ>Tov Xoyov (but 7rpoTepos =' former,' 'hitherto' 
survives in E. 4. 22 tyjv irporepav dvacrrpo^rjVy cp. Herm. Mand. iv. 
3. 1, 3 etc.) ; the corresponding adv. 7rp6repov= 'formerly' H. 10. 32, 
1 P. 1. 14 to irpoT. (§ 34, 7) in Jo. 6. 62, 9. 8 (ibid. 7. 50, 51 as a 
wrong reading), G. 4. 13, 1 Tim. 1. 13, whereas the first of two actions 
is here also denoted by irp&Tov (Mt. 7. 5, 8. 21, L. 14. 28, 31 etc.), 
except in H. 4. 6, 7. 27 (literary style; in 2 0. 1. 15 wpoTepov should 
apparently be erased with »*). The opposite word frrxa/ros is like- 
wise also used in comp. sense (Mt. 27. 64) ; while ftrrepos is superl. 

1 Tim, 4. 1 (a wrong reading in Mt. 21. 31); the adv. vcrrepov is 

§ 44, note 3), L. 12. 4 irepiGdbrepbv {irepivabv AD al.) ri = irkiov ri ; 12. 48 irepia- 
abrepov, D irXeov ; cp. Mt. 11. 9 = L. 7. 26, Mc. 12. 40 = L. 20. 47, Mc. 12. 33 vll. 
irepLaabrepov and ir\e?ov, Clem. Cor. i. 61. 3. The adv. ire pure us Mt. 27. 23, on which 
Chrysost. vii. 813 b says irepivvGos rovreari /ulcLWov, Mc. 10. 26, 15. 14 (-(rcroTepus 
ENP al.). (In conjunction juaWov irepieabrepov [-epws D] Mc. 7. 36, -epws /u. 

2 C. 7. 13, vide inf., cp. § 44, 5 and pleonasms like evdttas irapaxpv^') So also 
the Berlin papyri, 326, ii. 9 el 5' 'in ireptaad ypd/xfjiara KaraXcircj ('further'), and 
mod. Greek ire ptcra brepos, adv. -pov 'more. 5 In St. Paul, however, irepicraoTepus 
appears occasionally to have a still stronger force = virepfiaXXbvrws 2 C. 7. 15, 
12. 5, G. 1. 14, cp. A. 26. 11 {irep. fidXXov 2 C. 7. 13 (?) = 'still much more,' cp. 
sup.), while in other passages of his writings it may be replaced by /uloXXov or 
IxaXtara, as irepiao-brepos by 7rXetW : Ph. 1. 14, 2 C. 1. 12, 1 C. 12. 23 f., 2 C. 10. 
8 etc. So also H. 7. 15 ne pia a ore pov ( = /jloXXop) 'in Kardbrfkov, 2. 1, 13. 19 -peas, 
Herm. Mand. iv. 4. 2, Sim. v. 3. 3. 

1 Kiihner, i. 3, 1. 565. ayad&TaTos is also found in Herm. Vis. i. 2. 3 ('excel- 
lent ' ; as a proper superl. in Diod. Sic. xvi. 85) ; Herm. Sim. viii. 9 has 
ydtirepos, Kiihner, ibid. 555. a v. A pp. p. 307. 

§ 12. § 13. 1-2.] - NUMERALS. PRONOUNS. 35 

common (also in superl. sense, as in Mt. 22. 27, L. 20. 32). 
Further exx. of comp. of adverbs : IgcoTepos Mt. 8.12 etc. (Herm. 
Sim. ix. 7. 5), lo-wTepos A. 16. 24, H. 6. 19 KaT<oT€pos E. 4. 9 (of 
course also in superl. sense) ; these adjectives are not found in 
Attic, which however has the corresponding adverbs : dvcorepov 
L. 14. 10, H. 10. 8 (Att. more often -pay), 1 Karwre/xo Mt. 2. 16 
(/cctTw perhaps more correctly D), 7roppuTepa) {-pov AB) L. 24. 28, 
iyyvrepov R. 13. n. 

§ 12. NUMERALS. 

1. Avo has gen. 6M0, dat. Sva-lv (plural inflection) : similarly lxx.: 2 
Svo-iv for Svocv is condemned by Phrynichus (Lob. 210). 

2. In compounds of &6Ka with units, at least from thirteen up- 
wards, 8eKa occupies the first place (this practice is more frequent 
in the later language than in the older : in mod. Gk., except in the 
case of eleven and twelve, it is universal) : (8eKa8vo [Polyb.] 
A. 19. 7 HLP, 24. 11 same evidence; SeKareo-crapes Mt. 1. 17, 
2 C. 12. 2, G. 2. 1 : ScKcwrciTc Jo. 11. 18, A. 27. 28, G. 1. 18 (Sc/ca 
kcu 7revre Herm. Vis. ii. 2. I tf) : SeKaoKra> L. 13. 4 (Se/«x kcu o. tf c A 
al.), 11 (8. k. 6. AL al.). The ordinals, however, take the reverse 
order : TecrcrapecrKaLdeKaTOS A. 27. 27, TrevTeKacSeKaTos L. 3. 1 (Ionic 
and later language: Attic usually rerapros koI Se*.). With larger 
numbers there is a similar order of words, with or (usually) without 
/cat : €lko(tl rpeis 1 C 10. 8, TecrcrepaKOvra /cat e£ Jo. 2. 20. 

§ 13. PRONOUNS. 

1. Personal. — The 3rd pers. is represented by avrov : the same 
form is used for the 3rd pers. possessive. Eeflexives: 1st pers. 
sing. ijuLdvTov, 2nd sing, o-edvrov (not cravrov), 3rd sing, eavrov (not 
avrov) : 3 plural 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pers. eavrov (so in Hellenistic Gk., 
not rjfJL(ov a., vjiiov a., creator a.; on vfiQv avrwv in 1 C. 5. 13 from 
Deut. 17. 7, see § 48, 10). 

2. Demonstratives. — Ovtos, i/ceti/o? as usually ; the intensive l 
(ovto(t-i) is unknown, but is employed by Luke (in the Acts) and 
Paul (Hebrews) in the adv. vwl^vvv. "OSe is rare and almost con- 
fined to the phrase rd8e X'eyei : Acts 21. 11, Ap. 2. 1, 8, 12, 18, 

1 Peculiar are %ri &vca, %tl Karoo for dvdbrepov, nar&repov in the apocryphal addi- 
tion to Mt. 20. 28 in D<£, with which cp. Xen. Anab. 7, 5. 9 'in avw arpare^eadai 
(and Dindorf s note). 2 W.-Schm. § 9, 11. 

3 Even in the inscriptions of this period the trisyllabic forms, eavrov etc. sup- 
plant the dissyllabic, which in classical times were used alongside of them. In 
the old edd. of the N.T. the latter still appear pretty frequently, but are now 
rightly replaced by eavrov or avrov (see Synt. § 48, 6), so even in R. 14. 14 di' 
eavrov KAB, A. 20. 30 owicrio eavrdov tfAB. The long a results from the con- 
traction (2o avrov) ; in the Hellenistic and Roman period it has occasioned the 
loss of the v in pronunciation, whence the spelling ifiarov, earov (just as the 1 in 
at,' a was unpronounced). See Wackernagel in Kuhn's Zeitschr. xxxiii. 
(N. F. xiii.), p. 2tf. 

3 6 SYSTEM OF CONJUGATION. [§ 13. 2-5. §14. 

3. 1, 7, 14; elsewhere tcc6V A. 15. 23 D; rrJSe L. 10. 39; r^vSc 
Ja. 4. 13 (Clem. Cor. ii. 12. 5 rj8e is only a conjecture). Cp. Synt. 
§ 49, 1, and inf. 4. 

3. Relatives. — "Os, rj, o: oo-rts, tjtls, o,™ ; the latter, however, 
only in the warn* sing, and plur., except that 6,n also appears as 
ace: in meaning it becomes confused with 6s, see Synt. § 50, 1. We 
have the stereotyped phrase tcos orov in Luke and John (also in Mt. 
5. 25; a<£' oVovin D L. 13. 25); otherwise there is no instance of 
these old forms (so we never find ao-o-a, arra for artva), in the same 
way that the forms tov, tov ( = twos, tivos), tw, tw ( = tivi, tivi) etc. 
from rts, rts have become obsolete. "Ocnrep is only found in Mc. 15. 6 
K C B 3 C al. 6Wc/> rJTovvro (male ov iraprjT. ** *AB* ; the right reading in 
DG ov av rjrovvro § 63, 7), and according to Marcion in L. 10. 21 a-rrep 
*Kpv\pas. On the use of 6s for a demonstrative pron. see Synt. § 46, 2. 

4. Correlative pronouns. — Uoios - tolovtos (toioo-Sc only 2 P. 1. 17 
Totaorck, cp. 2) — otos — 07rotos. Ilocros — Tocrovros — ocros. IL7 At/cos 

(G-. 6. 11, H. 7. 4) - tijAmcoStos (2 C. 1. 10, H. 2. 3, Ja. 3. 4, 
Ap. 16. i8)-^At/cos (Col. 2. 1, Ja. 3. 5). To these must be added 
irorairos (with similar meaning to irolos), Synt. § 50, 6. On the 
correlative adverbs, see § 25. Tolovtos and too-ovtos (ttjXlkovtos) 
have neut. in -ov and -o (both forms are also found in Att., though 
the first is more frequent) : with var. lect. Mt. 18. 5, A. 21. 25 
/3 text, H. 7. 22: with -ov only H. 12. 1 ; on the other hand 
ttjXlkovto Herm. Yis. iv. 1. 10 (2. 3 with v.l.). a 

5. With pronouns and pronominal forms it has also happened 
that words indicating duality as distinct from plurality have become 
obsolete (rroTepos — tls ; eK&Tepos — eKaaTos), with the exception of 
dfjb<poT€poL (the N.T. form, never <x/zc£w) and erepo?, which, however, 
already becomes confused with dXXos. Cp. Synt. § 51, 6. 


1. The system of the conjugation of the verb is apparently not 
much altered from its earlier state, since nearly all the classical 
forms are found in the N.T., the dual, of course, excepted. The 
voices remain as before : and the tenses are the same, except that in 
all voices only one future exists : e'xco, e£o> (the fut. crx^crw, which is 
derived from the aorist and related to it in meaning, never occurs); 
/xt/xi/^o-KO/xat, fjLvrjo-OrjcrofJLat (not /xe/xi/^cro/xat fut. perf., of which the 
name ' Attic future ; is sufficient indication that it was absent from 
the Hellenistic language); eW^v, ctttjcto p,ai; io-TaO^v, o-TaOrjo-ofiaL, but 
not eo-Trj^o) 1 fut. perf; <£aiVo/z,afc, cfravrjaofiou, but the form cjxivovfJLCu, 
which in Attic was allied to the present as distinguished from 
cfravrja: which belonged to ecjydvrjv, no longer appears (1 P. 4. 18 is a 
quotation from lxx. Prov. 11. 31). This certainly destroys the 
harmonious structure of the system of the tenses, viz. continuous 

1 For KeKpa£ovTqi L. 19. 40 the better attested reading is Kpd^ovo-tv fc*BL 
{Kpa%ovT<u D: Keicp&l-ofJLcu passim in lxx.). But cp. the aor. e/c&paifa A. 24. 21, 
inf. §24. «v. App. p. 307. 

§ 14- 1-2. § is 1-3.] SYSTEM OF CONJUGATION. 37 

action in present, past, and future time = pres. impf. and fut. of the 
present (e£w, n/xryo-o/xai pass.): completed action in past and future 
time = aorist and fut. of the aorist (o*x^<™, ti/m^o-ojmu) : continuity 
of completed action in present, past, and future time = perf., plupf., 
and fut. of the perfect (Icm^o), /^/U^o-opxi pass.). Of the moods, 
moreover, the optative is clearly on its way to becoming obsolete, 
being only found in Luke's writings with any frequency, where its 
presence is due to the influence of the literary language which 
retained it. Of the future opt. there is no trace, and this tense is, 
generally speaking, almost confined to the indie, since the use of the 
fut. infin. is, with few exceptions, limited to the Acts (11. 28, 23. 30, 
24. 15, 27. 10: cp. Synt. § 61, 3), and the fut. part, outside the 
writings of the same author (Gosp. 22. 49, Acts 8. 27, 20. 22, 22. 5, 
24 17) is of quite rare occurrence (Mt. 27. 41 owo)!/, but owcu n*, 
Kal <rLei D Jo. 6. 64 p], 1 C. 15. 37, H. 3. 5, 13. 17, 1 P. 3. 13, 
2 P. 2. 13 with v.L), cp. Synt. § 61, 4. Finally, the verbal adjective 
has practically disappeared, with the exception of forms like Swaros 
which have become stereotyped as adjectives; the only exx. are 
TraOrjTos ' liable to suffering 7 A. 26. 23, and fiXrjreov L. 5. 38 (k*D 
pdWovo-Lv; as a v.l. also in the parallel passage Mc. 2. 22) 'one must 
put into,' as in Att. : cp. Herm. Vis. iv. 2. 6 aiperuTepov." 

2. Periphrastic forms. — The perf. and pluperf. indie, act. and pass., 
are not unfrequently represented by a periphrasis (as is also the case 
in Att.), while for the perf. conjunctive (passive) a periphrasis is a 
necessity (as in Att. for the most part) ; the perf. imperat. is 
expressed periphrastically in L. 12. 35 eo-rcocrav 7re/He<W/xei/at ; on the 
other hand we have 7r€<^t/xwcro Mc. 4. 39. By means of periphrasis 
the place of the fut. perf. may also be supplied (L. 12. 52, Mt. 16. 19, 
18. 18, H. 2. 13) ; periphrasis has, on the whole, a very wide range in 
the N.T., see Synt. § 62. 


1. The syllabic augment is wanting as a rule in the pluperf. (as 
also in other Hellenistic writings, but not in Att.) 5 ; exceptions are 
chiefly in the passive (W. Schmidt de Josephi elocut. 438): e/3ef3XrjTo 
L. 16. 20, areyeypaTTTO A. 17. 23 (rjv yeypapLfievov D), crvvereOeiVTO 
J. 9. 22, 7repte8eSeTO 11. 44 (irepiSeS. D*), are-jro'tOti L. 11. 22 {jreTrotOev 

D), kyeyovei Jo. 6. 17 v.L, and many others. 

2. The syllabic augment, in places where in Attic it holds an excep- 
tional position instead of (or in addition to) the temporal, has been 
ill maintained : wi/ov/xat, Jyvovpbrjv (Att. !a)j/. ; Pap. Oxyrh. ii. p. 205 
laivrj/JLevos, 253 u)V7]fJLevr]v), co#to, wcra ( dwdjcrafv )to A. 7. 27 etc., e^cocreu 45, 
i^eaxrev only in N*E : coOovv Ev. Petr. 6) : in dvotyo), Kardyvvfja it has in- 
deed survived, but through being misunderstood has intruded into the 
other moods and the fut. (see irreg. verbs, § 24) ; irpoopMfiiqv (-up- B 3 P) 
A. 2. 25 O.T. quot. : ewpwi/ Jo. 6. 2 «rA al. is no doubt a wrong reading 
for Weiopow (cp. ibid.). On the reduplication in e6pai<a, vide. inf. 6. 

3. The augment rj- instead of I- (less frequent in Att. than in later 
writers) is always used with 6eXo) (Att. eOeXu, r/^eAov), never with 

a b v. App. p. 307. 


fiouXofiaL (a word adopted from the literary language : but rj/SovXero 
Herm. Sim. v. 6. 5) ; in Bvvafmi and /xeXAw there is much variation 
in the MSS. between rjSw., rjfi-, and I5W., ifi- (cp. W.-Schm. § 12, 3)., 

4. Loss of the temporal augment. — The addition of the temporal 
augment was not without exceptions even in Attic Gk. in the case 
of an initial diphthong of which the first letter was e or o. The 
KT. has ef£a GL 2. 5 (as in Att.), oIko8o[L(o, oiKoSo/jL-qOrj kB* Jo. 2. 20, 
olKo86fjLY]<T€v B*D A. 7. 47, €TroLKo86fjLr]crev 1 C. 3. 14 {€7ro)K. B 3 C) i on 
the other hand ^KoSofirja-ev Mt. 21. 33 all MSS., wkoSo/^to L. 4. 29 
(oiKoSofirjfai D), cp. ivyKYjcrev 2 Tim. 1, 5 (-ot- only D*), Kar^Krjo-ev 
(-urev) Ja. 4. 5 O.T., ^apU^o-ev H. 11. 9 etc. W. H. App. 161. 
Since the original documents of the time show several instances 
of unaugmented ot, and the practice is proscribed as Ionic by the 
grammarians (Phrynich. 153 Lob., Cramer, An. Ox. iii. 260), it may 
safely be attributed to the writers ; besides (for oi) no longer bore 
much resemblance to oi (which in ordinary pronunciation inclined to 
v). Cp. W.-Schm. § 12, 5. Ev in older Attic when augmented always 
became rjv, in the later Attic (which also used >?t, ei interchangeably) 
not always ; l in the N.T. ev preponderates, but yv- also occurs not 
unfrequently : rjvpiorKero H. 11. 5 ace. to nADE, irpocrrjv^avTo A. 8. 15 
(-ev- only B), 20. 36 (-ev- B*D), rfix&mv EL 9. 3 (ev X - DEKL). 2 For 
unaugmented at the only ex. is 2 Tim. 1. 16 iiraurxvvOrj (-rj- K*K ; 
interchange of at = e and t] ?). — The augment is wanting in the case 
of a single short vowel in iXrjXvOetv (as in Att.: Attic reduplic.) : in 
dvWr) for -eiOrj A. 16. 26, d^Wyo-av R. 4. 7 O.T. (e arose from the 
moods instead of et = i: similarly lxx.) : in 6<fce\ov as a particle 
introducing a wish, cp. § 63, 5 ; other cases appear to be clerical 
errors: 8L€piirjvev(cr)ev L. 24. 27 (-17- EHKM al.), SteyetpeTo Jo. 6. 18 
B al, 7rpoopw/x7]v A. 2. 25 O.T.,vide supra 2, dvopOwOr) L. 13. 13 (-w- 
nE al.) etc. 

5. Temporal augment *i or «. — In general the JST.T. agrees with 
Attic ; thus it has J/oyafo/xcu, rjpya^ojuirjv A. 18. 3 tf*AB*DE, rjpyao-dfi^v 

Mt. 25. 16 k*B*DL, 26. 10 k*B*D, Mc. 14. 6 K*B*D, L. 19. 16 
k*AB*DE* al., H. 11. 33 k*D* (see also R. 7. 8, 15. 18, 2 C. 7. u, 
12. 12 ; B* reads et- only in R. 15. 18, » in all these four passages, 
DE never) as in Attic, and in the Berlin Egyptian Records 530. 15 
G-vvrjpydo-avro (but perf. -et-, augm. and redupl. being distinguished, 
see 6). 

6. Reduplication. — Initial p loses its peculiarity in pepavna-- 
fjikvos H. 10. 22 K*ACD*P for epp.: irepipepapL^kvos Ap. 19. 13 only 
K* (TrepipepavTicrp,. K cc ), cp. pepifxfxevot Mt. 9. 36 D*. (Similar forms 
in Ionian and late writers, a W.-Schm. § 12, 8: Kiihner, I s ii. * 23). 
On p for pp, vide supra § 3, 10. pvrjcrTeva), fiefivrjo-revfievrj (on the 
model of fJLefjLvrjpiai) L. 1. 27, 2. 5 only as a v.l. (Clem. Horn. xiii. 16: 

1 In the later Atticism this is purely phonetic, as is shown by the fact that 
this ev was also introduced as the augment for av : eti&aa from av^dvw. The 
same ev appears in inscriptions of the Roman period ; but in the N.T. the only 
example is D etigave A. 12. 24.* a *v. App. p. 329. 

2 W.-Schm. § 12, 55. a v. App. p. 307. 


Kiihner, ibid. 24). eipyacr/jLou (from FzFtpy.) as in Att. (augm. rj, see 
0) Jo. 3. 21, 1 P. 4. 3. Similarly we have eopaKa beside ewpcov : in 
this case, however, the spelling eupaKa is very widely spread both in 
Att. and in the N.T. (1 C. 9. 1 -o- *B*D C EFGP, -co- AB 3 al. : 
Jo. 1. 18 -o- B*EFGHKX, -w *AB 3 CLM al. etc.). cUicftywvos is read 
by nearly all MSS. in L. 16. 20 (as if from 4'Akco). 

7. Augment and reduplication in compound verbs and verbs 
derived from compounds. — Where the simple verb (with initial 
vowel) has been forgotten, the augment precedes the prepos. (so usu. 
in Att., but always in N.T.) : KadevSu, eKadevSov ; KaOifo, tKadicra, 
eKaOeftfjLrjv, eKaOrjfjirjv 1 ; ^/x^tecr/xei/09. In addition to these N.T. has 
dcf>ia ( = a</)i^/xt) 7](fyLev Mc. 1. 34, 1L 16 (attested also in Att., but 
hardly correctly, as an alternative for ac^iet, ^<£ta), and dvoiyto, -tjvoc^a 
side by side with dveco^a, rjveuga, with inf. dve^xOrjvai L. 3. 21 
(dvoixO. only in D) : impf. only (Styjvoiyt L. 24. 32, perf. act. in 
nearly all cases dveioya Jo. 1. 52 (^vecoyoTa »), 1 C. 16. 9, 2 C. 6. 11. 
See irreg. verbs, § 24. Thus whereas in this instance the double 
augm. appears as against the Att. usage, avex ^ has only the single 
augm.: dvecrxof^v A. 18. 4 (r)v. DEHLP), dvetxecr^e 2 0. 11. 1 (ibid. 4, 
but BD* dvex-), cp. Moeris's dictum rjvecrx^ro 'AttlkoI, dv. "EAA^ves; 
elsewhere, too, in the N.T. there h no instance of doubly augmented 
forms of this kind. 

Verbs derived from compounds (-rrapao-vvdeTa) are in general 
treated like compound verbs in Attic Gk., if the first component 
part is a prepos.; the same is always the rule in N T.. except in the 
case of 7rpocf>r}T€veLV : €.Trpo<f>y)Tzvcraixev Mt. 7. 22 nB*CLZ, irpo^. 
B 2 EGM al., 11. 13 €7rpo^rev(rav *B*CDG, Trpoecj,. B**EFG al, (with 
similar division of MSS.) 15. 7, Mc. 7. 6, L. 1. 67, A. 19. 6 (« always 
iirp. except in Jd. 14 TTpoeTrpo<j>rjrevcrev : B* £Trpo<fi., B a €7rpoe</>., all 
others 7r/x>ec/>.). 2 So also SlcLkovu) makes Sltjkovovv (from 8i&kovos : 
does 8td form part of the word ?), but in Att. ZSlolkovow (we even 
have Trepicrcrevo), rrepikcrcrevov in E Acts 16. 5, a form proscribed by 
Phrynichus and Cramer, An. Ox. iii. 257). v erbs formed from com- 
pounds of ev, when the adverb is followed by a short vowel, have a 
tendency in the late language to augment this vowel : evayye\l£opat, 
evr}yyeki£6[JL7]v (so always): evapecrrQ, evypecrrrjKevai H. 11. 5 rDEP 
(evap. AKL). 8 Verbs compounded of two prepositions tend to a 
double augmentation : direKarecrT-q (cwtok. B) Mc. 8. 25, aTreKaTeo-rdOr} 
(diroK. DK) Mt. 12. 13: similarly Mc. 3. 5 (<mtok. D), L. 6. 10 
(parallel forms occur in inscriptions and the papyri) ; but in H. 12. 4 
dvreKarecTTrjTe is hardly attested. 4 

1 'Eicdfinvffav Mt. 13. 15 O.T., A. 28. 27 O.T., explains itself. Ka^w from 
Kar{d)fj.}jo} : the verb is proscribed by Phryn. Lob. 339. 

2 This verb is treated at length in Kovtos kpitlkcll /cat ypctjuLfji. irapaTrjp'ricreis (1895), 
p. 70 ff. : see also W. Schmidt, Joseph, eloc. 442. UapprjaLdto/jLat e-rrapp. does 
not come under this head (irau not irapd is imbedded in it). 

3 Hermas, Vis. iii. 1. 9 edapecrTrjKOTOjv tf , evtjp. as : ev7]pe(TT7}crav Sim. viii. 
3. 5- 4 v. App. p. 329. 

4 o VERBS IN -& TENSE FORMATION. [§ 16. 1-3. § 17. 


1. Verbs with pure stem. — Qopeay keeps a short vowel in the 
formation of the tenses (Att. -^-), ifopeo-afiev, ^opka-o^v 1 C. 15. 49 
(<£o/9€o-(u Herm. Sim. ix. 16. 3, but perf. ire^op-qKores ibid, i); 1 
inversely (kw^Trodko) makes hreiroO-qo-a 1 P .2. 2 (lxx.; in old and 
Attic Gk. -eo-a preponderates). Cp. ippWrjv from stem pe- Mt. 5. 2 1 
RLM al., 27 KL at., 31 tfLM al., and so elsewhere interchangeably 
with €pprj07jv (cp. lxx. and other late writings), but the short 
vowel is limited in N.T. and other writings to the indie: where 
there is no augment the form is always p-qOefc etc. (but in Pap. 
Oxyrh. ii. p. 161, we even find pzOkvrw). Heivdv makes Tretvda-o), 
k-rrdvaa-a (no doubt with a, not d) L. 6. 25 etc. (so also lxx.); but 
8i\f/av, 8t\j/r](ro). With or we have XeXovcrpLtvoL H. 10. 23 rD*P, the 
other MSS. have XcXov/m. as in Att. and so Jo. 13. 10 (-oyz- only E) : 
KeKXeio-fxat always (L. 11. 7 etc.), as against Att. -eifxat (-yfiat) : 
€KXeio-0rjv as Att. : ep. irreg. verbs fwiw/u, Kepdvw/M, o-yfo. 

2. Verbs with, mute stem. — Of verbs in -£a> the following have a 
guttural character : vvo-rdfa, evvcrra^av Mt. 25. 8 (Hellen.: Att. -cum): 
7rat£o), fut. €fJLTra[£(ti, aor. pass. eveiralxO-qv Mc. 10. 34, Mt. 2. 16 etc. 
(Doric and Hellen.: hraura etc. Att.); the following is dental: 
<raX7rtfo>, craXirio-O), Ja*a Altera (1 C. 15. 52, Mt. 6. 2 al.), Hellenistic 
for -t(y)£a ; the following fluctuate : ap7rd£w, -acrco, tfpTrava, -do-Orjv 
( = Att.), but -dyrjv Hellenist. 2 0. 12. 2, 4, cp. dpirag (Att.), ap7rayrj 
(old and Att.), dpTrayfios (dp7ra£co Homeric fut.) : ctt^/h^w? -ta-co, -tcra 
L. 9. 51 BOL al. (-t|a »AD al.), 22. 32 (-£- D al.), Ap.3 2 ACP 
(-£-kB), 2 Th. 3. 3 B, A. 15. 32 OE, elsewhere -f- (and eo-ryypty/xat, 
o-TrjpLyfjLos), which was the old inflection : cp. o-rr)piy£. e Ap/*6£a> 
(rjplJLoo-dfjLrjv), o-<$>dfa (ecr<£a£a) are unrepresented in present and 

3. Verbs with liquid stem. — Verbs in -ouvw, -oupw take only -dm, 
-apa in the 1st aor. act., without regard to the preceding sound : 
thus egrjpava (p precedes) as in Att., but also iXeuKdva (e/cepoWa), 2 

t/SdarKava, io-rjimdva for Att. -r)va : kirufravai from -<£cui/G) L. 1. 79, 
dvacfravavres (male -(fxxvevres AB*CE al.) A. 21. 3, <j>dvy Ap. 18. 2 7,: 
egtKadapa 1 0. 5. 7, 2 Tim. 2. 21 (eKaOapa is also sporadically 
found in 4th century Attic). ^Apat (contracted from deipai) agrees 
with Att. Perf. pass, igrjpapfievos Mc. 11. 20 (Att. -acr/mfc, though 
-a/xjutat is also attested), /x€/xiaju-/xevos Tit. 1. 15 (Att. -ay/,-), cp. fxepapap- 
fjLtvos Herm. Vis. iii. 11. 2 ^ (-ao-/x- as), KarYjcrxv^pkvos Mand. xii. 5. 2 
(we even- have KaTaoreo-^/x^/xjaei/a in Pap. Ox. i. p. 183). 



A new present tense is formed out of the perf. (instances of which 
are forthcoming also at an earlier period : yeywvew from yeyuva) : 
7PTryop€iv (Phryn. 118) from kyp-qyopa (the latter never in N.T.: 

1 The e in <f>opia) is never found elsewhere except in the aorist and future active. 

2 1 C. 9. 21 KABal., but tf c DEKL K€p8r)<To the regular form elsewhere, cp. 
Irreg. Verbs, § 24. 

§ 17. §18.] NEW PRESENT TENSE. 41 

yprjy. LXX., never in good writers, N.T. with aor. eyprjyop^cra) : 
cH]K« 'stand' from earrjKa (used along with the latter word),'* 
Mc. 11. 25 o-rrjKere (-rjre; crrrJTe K), 3. 31 crTrjKovres BC* (v.l. o-rdvres, 
to-TTjKores, co-rwres), 1 C. 16. 13 (imperat. o-T^/ceTe), G. 5. 1 (id.), 
Ph. 4. 1 (id.), 1 Th. 3. 8 (id.), the only additional forms elsewhere 
are a-rrjKet R. 14. 4, and crrrjKeTe indie. Ph. 1. 27 : thus it is almost 
confined to Pauline writings, and is mainly found in the imperat. 
(for which to-rare is the old form, eo-T^Kere is unexampled). 6 The 
word (mod. Gk. a-Tew. o-ttjku), Epigr. Kaibel, 970) is thoroughly 
plebeian. Other exx. of new present forms are : d|A<|Hd£<o for -evvvpii 
(Hellenist., also lxx.) L. 12. 28, a^ta^ei B, -e£ei DL (the latter 
form, elsewhere unattested, is cited by Cramer, An. Ox. 2. 338, 
as kolvov, and -afw as SwpiKov), -evwcn &A etc. as all mss. read in 
Mt. 6. 30: — evSiSvvKu 'put on' Mc. 15. 17 «BC (D IvBvSutk.) for 
€v8vo) : ivStSvo-KOfxai ' put on oneself ' L. 8. 27 K ca A (D -8v8i-) c al. 
(v.L aor.), 16. 19 (lxx., Herm. Sim. ix. 13. 5): — Kpvp« (Hellenist., 
see Phryn. Lob. 317 : formed from the Hellenist, aor. eKpv^v, like 
£ypd<f>r]V from ypd<faa: see § 19, 2), L. 1. 24 7repceKpv/3ev impf., not 
2nd aor.: elsewhere no instances of pres. or impf. in N.T., Ev. 
Petr. 16 €Kpvj36fjLe6a : — (&«iro)KT4v(v)» for -Kretvw, with extremely un- 
certain spelling : Mt. 10. 28 -KTevvovriav (-evovnov E al., -uvovroyv B): 
Mc. 12. 5 -kt€Vvovt€s, FG al. -evovres, B -evvvvres, ** c -ivvvvres, MS 
-alvovres : L. 12. 4 -evvovruv, -evovroyv DG al., -atv- M, -civ- B: 
2 C. 3. 6 -evvei, ACDE al. -evei, B -civet : Ap. 6. 1 1 -evveor#ai, BP 
-eiveo-Qai : 13. 10 -evei, -evei BCP, -civci tf ; here Lachm. writes -aivei 
(as he does in 2 C. 3. 6), Tischend. -evei. 1 The ordinary -eivw has 
most support in Mt. 23. 37 (-ew- CGK, -ev- a), L. 13. 34 (-ew-AK 
al.). For the spelling with -w- or -v- see on x^K 17 ) 00 : — vitttw (appar- 
ently not earlier than Hellenistic Gk., from vfya), evi\pa) for vifo> : — 
Xw(v)co for x^ w (Hellenist., mod. Gk. : cp. /ce^-u^ai, kyyQ-qv with 
en-XvOrjv from 7rXwa)) everywhere except in Mt. 9. 17 e^e^rat 
(probably due to interpolation^); in Ap. 16. 1 we should write 
eKxeare aor. with B instead of -eere. 2 The best MSS. write the word 
with w: A. 9. 22 kB*C, 21. 31 K*AB*D, 22. 20 kAB* Mt. 26. 28 
kABCD al., similarly 23. 35, Mc. 14. 24, L. 11. 50, 22. 20; in other 
writings, however (Lob. Phryn. 726), x 1 '™ is the only recognised 
form, and this also has analogy in its favour. Cp. further in the 
table of verbs, § 24, fiXao-rdv, ya/xi£eiv, oTTTavevOai (under bpdv). 


1. The so-called Attic future of verbs in -eoo, -a£co etc. disappears, 
almost entirely, as the name implies, from Hellenistic Greek, and 
entirely from the N.T.; therefore -ea-w, -ao-a>, not -to -eh, -to -as in N.T. 

1 In Acts 3. I for avefiaivov A has avai(3evvoi>, C dv€/3evvou, in L. 10. 31 A Karai- 
pevvev. The spelling -ktolivw has, however, little probability in view of the con- 
sistent forms of the fut. -evCb and aor. -ecva ; with -£vw one might compare p.evu. 
(&7roKTevv(x) also occurs occasionally in lxx., W.-Schm. § 15 note.) 

2 Herm. Vis. v. 5 avyxtwov N ; in Sim. viii. 2. 7 irapaxeeiv of as should 
perhaps be emended irapaxtai. a b c d y App p 307 

4 z VERBS IN -0,. FORMATION OF THE FUTURE. [§ 18. 1-3. 

Greek are correct (whilst the lxx. retains e.g. epydrai, dpira). So in 
particular kol\(x> KaXecro), tcAw TeAeo-co (a7rdAAi'/xt, diroXko-to, diroXovLiai, 
§ 24). On the other hand, verbs in -t£<o to a great extent form their 
fut., as in Att., with -tw, particularly (W. H. ii. App., p. 163) in the 
3rd pers. plur. act., where the following syllable also begins with a 
<r: iXTTtova-Lv L. 1. 48, i8acf)iovo-iv 19. 44 etc. (only in Col. 4. 9 
yvwpicrovo-iv N c BFGrP, -lovo-iv tt*ACD c al., whereas ibid. 7 all mss. have 
yi/coptW, cp. E. 6. 21, Jo. 17. 26). In the lxx. the formation in 
-tw prevails, and this is accordingly found in O.T. quotations, 
wapopyia) R. 10. 19, /xerot/ctw A. 7. 43. Additional exx.: Mt. 25. 32 
d<f>opLcreL K*LA, -tet K C ABD al. (-touo-ti' 13. 49 all MSS.): /3a7TTicr€L 
always : Ja. 4. 8 kyyiei (-tcret A) : J/z<£aiwco, Oepco-o), KaOlcro) are 
constant: SiaKaOapcet Mt. 3. 12, item (L. 3. 17) H. 9. 14 (k<l6.) : 
KOfueto-et 1 P. 5. 4, KOfjueirai Col. 3. 25 K*ACD* (-tVeTai k c BD c al.), 
E. 6. 8 K C D C al. (-tVerat K*ABD* al.), koliiov^vol 2 P. 2. 13 (y.l. 
ddtKovfJLevoi) : arT-qpifa, -tcrco or -t£o>, § 16, 2 : garnet Ap. 22. 5 tfB, -Icrei 
AP : xapta-erat R. 8. 32 : xpovtet H. 10. 37 O.T. K C AD C al., -«ra K*D* 
(ov fjLrj xpovtvy LXX. ed ) : x^P 1 ™- Since in O.T. quotations the -tw 
of the LXX. has not been corrupted by scribes into -to-co, it appears 
that in original passages of the N.T. the reading -vera) should in 
general be preferred. 

2. Future without the characteristic form of the future tense. — 

Ilfco/xat agrees with the Att. form : for 4'So/jcu N.T. has <j>dyofiou y 
L. 14. 15, 17. 8, Jo. 2. 17 O.T., Ja. 5. 2, Ap. 17. 16 (lxx. has 
eSofjicu passim : c^dyo/mai, €cf>ayov correspond to ir 10 fiat, hriov : 
Phryn. 327, <£ay. ftdp/3apov). In place of the fut. x* * tne LXX - an( ^ 
N.T. have x e( ^> X €€ ^ etc -j ^xeetre Deut. 12. 16, 24 (Clem. Cor. 
ii. 7. 5 iraOdrai for 7retcreTat from Traorxw, cp. KadeSovfiat). 

3. Whereas in Att. many active verbs form a future middle, in 
N.T. the active form is in most cases employed throughout. 
'AkoiVo/zou occurs in the Acts (exc. in 28. 26 O.T. quot. -ere) and 
R. 10. 14 a wrong reading of tf*DE al. for -craxrtv « C B; but dKovo-w," 
Jo. 5. 25 (-ovtcu AD al.), 28 (item), 10. 16 al. (where there is 
diversity of reading -o-w is preferable, since -cro/xat has not been 
corrupted in the Acts). 'Ajxapr^o-o) Mt. 18. 21 (Herm. Mand. iv. 

1. I, 2) : &'jravTTJo-G> Mc. 14. 1 3 : apirdcra> Jo. 10. 28 (**DLX ov firj 
dpirdcry) : p\€\|/co Acts 28. 26 O.T.: ^eXdo-co L. 6. 21: (yvwo-ojxcu. as 
ordinarily): Siwjco Mt. 23. 34 al.: 1 (eo-fltco, < y see 2): itforo 
Jo. 5. 25 nBDL (-ovrat A al.), 6. 51 «DL (-erat BC al.), 57 ABC 2 
(-erat PA al., $7 C*D), with diversity of reading ibid. 58 and so 
passim, (^o-o/xat all mss. in Jo. 11. 25, K. 8. 13, ^o-w (1 Th. 5. 10, 
see § 65, 2) 2 Tim. 2. 11 (crwtrjo-oLiev ; -a)/*€i/ CLP is only a cor- 
ruption) : both forms also occur in Att. : (diroO avovpiai as usual) : 
OavfAao-ovTcu Ap. 17. 8 «B, correctly for N.T. OavLiao-drjcrovraL AP 
(from 0avfJLd(ofiaL — -o), cp. 13. 3): kXcuicg) L. 6. 25, Jo. 16. 20, Ap. 
18. 9 (wrongly -ovrai kA, though so read in Herm. Vis. iii. 3. 2) : 

1 'ETLopKrjaw Mt. 5. 33 is also the Att. form : KareinopKriffbixevos Demosth. 54. 
40 is passive. a v. A pp. p. 307. 

§ 19. 1-3.] VERBS IN -ft. FIRST AND SECOND A OR/ST. 43 

Kpdjo) L. 19. 40 kBL, KtKpagovrcu AE, al. as in Att. and lxx., 
KpdgovTOLL D : {Xrj{p)\po [xai, o^o/xcu as usual) : Trai£o> Mc. 10. 34 :. 
(TreorovfJLai, 7riofjLat as usual) : p€vo-<a Jo. 7. 38: CT-n-ouSdo-G) 2 P. 1. 15 
(-d((x) n) : o-vvavTTjo-o) (cp. diravr. : no Attic instance of fut. from o-w- 
ayrw) L. 22. 10, A. 20. 22 : (regopai, favgofiai, x a PW p<M as usual). 1 


1. 1st aorist act. in -o-a instead of 2nd aorist. — (*H|a) beside tfyayov 

is seen in kird^as 2 P. 2. 5, h:i(r\)vd£ai L. 13. 34, (rvvd^avTts A. 14. 27 D 
(found at the least in dialects, lxx., and late writers): TjfjidpTT]o-a side 
by side with TJfxapTov K. 5. 14, i6, a Mt. 18. 1 5,* Herm. Mand. iv. 3. 6, 
vi. 2. 7 etc. (Empedocl., lxx., Lob. Phryn. 732) : IptWa 1 P. 4. 2 
(the better Att. form is ifitwv), efyo-a often takes the place of 
the last word (Ionic and late, not Att.) A. 26. 5 etc.: lpXdo-Tt]<ra 
Mt. 13. 26, H. 9. 4, causative Ja. 5. 18 as in lxx. Gen. 1. n 
(Empedocl., late writers), never e/SXao-rov : ZSvo-a intrans. for e'6W 
Mc. I.32 BD (e'6V « A etc.), L. 4. 40 Svoravros D, Svvolvtos a few MSS.,. 
Svvovtos most MSS. : <d<paga as in late writers (the Attic dveKpayov in 
L. 23. 18 nBLT and Herm. Vis. iii. 8. 9 dvzKpayev \ A. 24. 21 e/ce/cpa^a 
fcABC as lxx.) : &€«|/a (late) A. 6. 2 (kcltcX.), L. 5. 1 1 D (id.), Mc. 1 2. 1 9 h 
Karakeuxf/y for -X^i-try, elsewhere eAt7rov. 2 The assimilation to the 
fut. is everywhere well marked. — A new 2nd aor. dveGaXov is formed 
from avaddXXu) Ph. 4. 10 (lxx.), apparently in causative sense 
(dveOdXere to virep ifiov cfrpov&v), unless rov should be read with EG-; 
cp. §§ 24 : 71, 2. 

2. 2nd aorist passive for 2nd aorist active. — 'E</>ifyv for c<£w, cfrvev 
(o-vficfyvdo-ai) L. 8. 6 ff., €K<j)vfj Mt. 24. 32 = Mc. 13. 28 (like kppvrjv ; 
late). So also Trapeio-^vrja-av for -va-av is read by B in Jd. 4. 

3. 1st and 2nd aorist (and future) passive. — In the passive voice 
the substitution of the 2nd aor. for the 1st is a very favourite idiom. 
riyyeXr)v c L. 8. 20 a7r. d (LXX., and as early as Att.) : tjvo^v Mc. 7. 35 
(-oi' x 6>. A al), A. 12. 10 (- x fty EHLP), Ap. 11. 19 (- x &? B), 15. 5 side 
by side with -\0rjv (Att. has 1st aor.) : fut. -y^cro/xcu Mt. 7. 7, 
L. 11. 10 kAC al., dvocyerat BD (as also B in Mt. loc. cit.), but 
- x <%o/zcu L. 11. 9 f. (A)(D)EF al.: frvdw 2 C. 12. 2, 4 (late) for 

Att. fjpird<r6r]V (so Ap. 12. 5 ACP, but -dyrj tf, -dxOrj B), with fut. 

-yrjcronai 1 Th. 4. 17 : IkcItiv (Horn., Ionic, late writers) Ap. 8. 7, 
1 C. 3. 15 (2 P. 3. 10), elsewhere, as in Att., we have the 1st aor. and 
the fut. formed from it : kxpvfav Mt. 5. 14, etc. In these new 2nd 
aorist forms there was a preference for the medial letters as the 
final sound of the stem, even though as in the last instance (Kpv<£>-) 
the stem strictly had another termination (-cfrOrjv Att., -<f>r)v poet.) : 
Cp. pres. Kpv/8co § 17 : KaT€vv-yT]v Acts 2. 37 : 8u>pvyfjvai V.l. -xOrfvai 
Mt. 24. 48 (Herm. Sim. ix. 6. 7) : 8i€Ta*yT]v G-. 3. 19 vTrerdyqv 

1 XapTfjaojuLai is also to be regarded as Att. fut. of the aorist, as compared with 
Xcupfou fut. of the present. 

2 Herm. Sim. viii. 3. 5 has KareXecxJ/eu along with -nrev. Clem. Cor. ii. 5 kcltci- 
\eL\pavTas, 10 -\d\pufxev. Deissmann N. B. 18 [ = Bible St. 190] (the simple form 
ZXeixf/a is frequent in the Anthology). ab cd v. App. p. 308. 

44 VERBS IN a DEPONENT VERBS. [§ 19. 3-4. § 20. 

E. 8. 20, 10. 3 al., Trpoo-erdyq Herm. Mand. iv. 1. 10, vTroTayyjo-opat 
1 C. 15. 28, H. 12. 9 (Barn. 19. 7), but L. 17. 9 f. SiaraxOevra as in 
Attic, ^xw makes ^vy^a-erai Mt. 24. 12 (-x^o"eT<u K ; late writers 
even say \pvyu, Lob. on Soph. Ajax, p. 373 2 : cp. €Kpvf3rjv - Kpvf3u). 
New 1st aorists (for what in Attic is expressed by a different verb) 
are krkyO^v L. 2. 11, Mt. 2. 2 (Att. eyevofirjv) : dTT€KrdvOrjv passim (Att. 
a7T€0ai/ov). A substitute for 2nd aor. is €kXl6t]v (poet.), the regular 
form (also /cAt^o-o/xat) for Att. l/cAu^r. 

4. On the intermixture of terminations of the 1st and 2nd aor. 
act. and mid. see § 21, 1. 



1. Aorist passive for aorist middle. — 'Hy€vf\Qr\v (Hellenist., Phryn, 
108, lxx.) in addition to eyevofiyv : Mt. 6. 10, 9. 29, 15. 28, 26. 42 
imperat. yevrjOrjro), in O.T. quot. eyevrjOT] 21. 42; elsewhere only 

11. 23 -vrjOrjo-av kBCD, 28. 4 KBC*DL ; Mc. and Jo. (including Epp. 
and Apoc.) never have this form except in O.T. quotations, so also 

L. Gosp., but 10. 13 (==Mt. 11. 23) -vrjOrja-av tfBDLH, 18. 23 -vijOtj 

rBL : in Acts the only instance is 4. 4 all mss. -vrjOrj, but D also 
has it in 7. 13, 20. 3, 16; it is frequent, however, in the epistles of 
Paul and Peter, and in Hebrews. Cp. the perfect yeyevrj/xac (found 
in Att.) in addition to yeyova. 'AttckpiOtjv (Hellenist., Phryn. 108) is 
universal, Luke alone uses the Attic form d7T€KptvdfjL7]v as well, 3. 16 
(23. 9, L correctly -vero), A. 3. 12 (D is different), and always in the 
indie; otherwise the latter form is only found with var. lect. : 
Mt. 27. 12 (D correctly -ero), Mc. 14. 61 (-tU? D; -verof), Jo. 5. 17, 
19, 12. 23. The corresponding fut. is dTroKpiO^o-opLai. So also 
VTroKpivopai 'dissemble,' (rvvvTreKpiOrjarav Gr. 2. 13 (vireKpiOrjv Herm. 
Sim. ix. 19. 3, as Polyb.), SiaKptvo/Jiai ' doubt/ SieKpidrjv. 'Atre- 
XoyrjOrjV (an old form, but not good Attic) L. 21. 14, direXoyiqcrrjcrOe 

12. 11, but Clem. Alex. ii. 357 Dind. cites here too -rjOrjre* 
Again, lyetpo/zat only makes i\yipQr\v (found in Attic), never 
rjypopLrjV : b dva7ravojJLai, (c^avairaTJcrojJLat L. 10. 6 fc*B* (-aixrerat 
rell.), Ap. 14. 13 kAC (ibid. 6. 11 -avcrovrai or -wi/Tat all mss., 
and so elsewhere; but Herm. Vis. i. 3. 3 n, iii. 9. 1 k e-n-dyv, 
and Kara7rarj(reTaL Pap. Londin. p. 113, line 916; e/cawa, eKarjv 
corresponds to eVa^a-a, eird-qv). To verbs expressive of emotion, 
which also in Att. take a passive aorist, belong dyaXXiufiou (found 
along with -tw, § 24), f|7aX\td0T]v (-o-Oyjv BL) Jo. 5. 35 (but 8. 56 
-acrdfxr)v, c and so elsewhere) : (#ai;/zafo/zcu, late form) €0aa>(j.d<r8'qv 
Ap. 13. 3 A (-avfiacrev tfBP, -av/xao-rioOrj C), -crOrjcrofxcu 17. 8, cp. 
§ 18, 3 (the act. -<xfa> occurs in Ap. 17. 7 and regularly elsewhere; 
iOavfxdo-Orjv in pass, sense 2 Th. 1. 10) : OanfietvOai Mc. 1. 27 
eOa/JblSyOTja-av (-/3rj(rav D), 6a/Jif3r)6evTes A, 3. 1 1 D, cp. impf. Mc. 10. 

24, 32, but Oa/i/Siov A. 9. 6 D as in Horn. etc. — AteAe£a,To A. 17. 2 

HAB (4x0rj DE), 18. 19 kAB (-6X&7 EHLP) is a wrong reading for 

dceXeyero ; the Attic SteXcxOrjv stands in Mc. 9. 34. 'Apveio-Ocu and 

a b c v. App. p. 308. 

§ 20. 1-2. § 2i.] VERBS IN -& TERMINA TIONS. 45 

oV- have only the aor. mid. (Att. more often aor. pass.; a corrupt 
active form dirapvyjo-ai occurs in Herm. Sim. i. 5). 

2. The future passive (i.e. strictly the aoristic fut., see § 14, 1) is 
found with other verbs similar to those mentioned : (evcj>pav6rjcropou 
only B for pres. Ap. 11. 16) 1 C. 15. 51, jJi€Tafi.€XT]0rfjo-ojMu 
H. 7. 21 O.T. quot., <|>avTJo-o|i.<u (<j>avovpai 1 P. 4. 18 O.T. quot.), 
<|>oPr)6i]o-o| H. 13. 6 O.T. On the Other hand: yevrjcropai, Svvrjcropai,, 
eir4J,€\TJo-o!JLai 1 Tim. 3. 5 : iropevo-opcu (L. 11. 5 etc.). 


1. As early as Attic Greek there is not wanting an intermediate 
form between the 1st and 2nd aor. act mid., with the terminations 
of the 1st aor. but without its o* : eTira beside ewrov, yjveyKa beside 
7]veyKov. The Hellenistic language had a tendency to extend this 
type to numerous aorists which in classical Greek had the termin- 
ations of the 2nd aor. throughout : elXa, -dprjv, evpa, -dpyv etc. 
(Kiihner I. 3 ii. 104). Still this process, by means of which the 
second aorist was eventually quite superseded, is in the N.T. far 
from complete. Etiro (W. H. App. 164) keeps a unchanged in the 
forms with r (as also in Att.) : ei-irare, -arw, -drucrav ; also fairly 
often before p : direiTrdpeOa 2 C. 4. 2, irpoeiirapev 1 Th. 4. 6 (-0- AKL 
al.); etiras Mt. bis, L. semel, Mc. 12. 32 with v.l. -es H*DEF aL, 
Jo. 4. 1 7 -es nB* ; -av has preponderant evidence ; rarely etira as 
in* A. 26. 15; imperat. ehr'e and elirov (for accent, Lob. Phr. 348) 
interchangeably; the part ei'7ras is rare (A. 22. 29 -wv HLP), eiirao-a 
hardly occurs (in Jo. 11. 28 all mss. have elirovo-a in the first place, 
BC* have -aara in the second ; -ao-a Herm. Vis. iii. 2. 3 N, iv. 3. 7 K*) ; 
etVoVros etc. and eiTrelv are constant. v Hvey/<a has a except in 
the infin. (only 1 P. 2. 5 has dveveyKcu, always -elv in Joseph.,, 
W. Schm. de Joseph, elocut. 457) ; imp. Mt. 8. 4 irpoo-eveyKe (-ov BC), 
Trap- Mc. 14. 36, L. 22. 42 (male vv. 11. -at L. al., -elv AQ al.). 
Other verbs never have inf. in -at nor part, -a?, nor yet imperat. 
2 sing, in -ov; on the other hand these forms occur: ^paXav A. 16. 
37 BD, 21. 27 K*A («r-), Mc. 14. 46 KB (hr-\ (egepaXav Mc. 12. 8 B, 
cp. Mt. 13. 48 D, 21. 39 D, Ap. 18. 19 C) ; ctSav Mt. 13. 17 kB, 
L. 10. 24RBC al., Mc. 6. 33 D etc.: eftapev Mt. 25. 37 B*I, Mc. 2. 
12 CD, 9. 38 DN : eftare L. 7. 22 A, Jo. 6. 26 C : et8a Ap. 17. 3 A, 
6 tfA ; in these instances -ov has far the most support from the MSS. 
It is otherwise with elXov, -Xa : eiXaro 2 Th. 2. 13 (-ero K), Herm. 
Sim. V. 6. 6: dveiXare A. 2. 23, -a-ro 7. 21 (-ero P), -av 10. 39 (-ov 
HLP): igeiXaro 7. 10 (-ero H), 12. 1 1 (-ero P), -dp V v 23. 27 (-6p W 
HLP), but -eo-Qai. 7. 34 O.T. quot. & ESpa has only slender attesta- 
tion : evpdpevos H. 9. 12 (-0- D*), -av L. 8. 35 B*, Mt. 22. 10 D, 
A. 5. 10 AE, 13. 6 A: -apev L. 23. 2 B*L al. Again there is 
preponderant evidence for frrco-a, -av, -are (G. 5. 4) : imp. -are 
L. 23. 30 (-ere N*ABD aL), Ap. 6. 16 (-ere tfBC). *HX0a Ap. 10. 9 A 

(-ovkBCP), -apev A. 27. 5 *A, 28. 16 A. 21. 8 B, Mt. 25. 39 D: 
-av is often interchanged with -ov : but the imp. eXOare, eXQdria is 
a h v. App. p. 308. 

46 VERBS IN -il. TERMINATIONS. [§ 21. 1-6. 

attested by the mass of the MSS. All other instances are quite 
isolated : dweOavav Mt. 8. 32 K b , L. 20. 31 B*, Jo. 8. 53 D* : e'Aa/3av, 
-afiev, -arc Jo. 1. 12 and 1 Jo. 2. 27 B*, L. 5. 5 A : liriav 1 C. 10. 

2. The (mod. Gk.) extension of the terminations -a, -as etc. to 
the imperfect is rare, and in no case unanimously attested. ETxav 
Mc. 8. 7 kBDA, A. 28. 2 kAB, 8. 10 «, Ap. 9. 8 «A (9 -ov omm), 
L. 4. 40 D, Jo. 15. 22, 24 D* (rell. -ov or -oo-av) : -a/xev 2 Jo. 5 NA : 
&€ 7 av Jo. 11. 56 KD, 9. 10, 11. 36 K*, A. 28. 6 B. According to 
Buresch, Eh. Mus. 46, 224, these forms should not be recognised in 
the N.T., since the MSS. supporting them are quite thrown into the 
shade by the enormous mass of those which support -ov, -es etc. 

3. The (aoristic) termination -av for -ao-t in the 3rd pers. plur. 
perf. (Alexandrian according to Sext. Emp. adv. gramm. 213) is not 
frequent either in the LXX. or in the N.T., and in the latter is 
nowhere unanimously attested, so that its originality is subject to 
the same doubt with the last exx. (Buresch, p. 205 ff.). The 
instances are ; eupaKav L. 9. 36 BC 2 LX, Col. 2. 1 k*ABCD*P : 
TeTiqprjKav BDL Jo. 17. 6: eyvuKav ABCD al., ibid. 7 (h^prjcrav - 
eyvuiv tf) : d7re<TTa\i<av i*AB A. 1 6. 36 : elcreXrjXvdav BP Ja. 5. 4 : 
ykyovav R. 16. 7 kAB, Ap. 2L 6 « C A (-a K*BP, Buresch) : 7r67r(T)a>Kai/ 
18. 3 AC : dprjKav 19. 3 tfAP. 

4. The termination -o-av for -v in the 3rd pers. plur. in Hellenistic 
and N.T. Greek is constant in the imper. (also in the pass, and mid. 
as Trpoo-evgdo-Ouo-av Ja. 5. 14) ; in the impf. (Hellenist., Kn, I. ii. 3 55) 
it is found in eSoXcovo-av R. 3. 13 O.T. quot.: also eixoo-av Jo. 15. 
22, 24 KB al. (eiyav D* ? € ?X 0V AD 2 which makes a very serious 
ambiguity), irapeXdfioo-av 2 Th. 3. 6 K*AD* (-ere BFG 3 -ov M c D corr EaL, 
somewhat ambiguous).* The forms are apparently authentic, since 
it is difficult to suppose that they were very familiar to the scribes, 
except in contract verbs, where these forms are also found in mod. 
Gk.; cp. Wopvftovcrav DA. 17. 5 (i<aTOLKovcrav ? D 2. 46 ; D also has 
^Acu^o-atcrav, evpourav in 17. 27, see 5 ; Herm. Sim. vi. 2. 7 evarra- 
Oovcrav, ix. 9. 5 ZSoKovcrav). Cp. Buresch, 195 fF. 

5. The termination -es for -as (in perf. and aor.) 1 is not only 
quite un classical, but is also only slenderly attested in the N.T. : 
Ap. 2. 3 K€K07rtaK€s AC, 4 d<prJKes fc*C : iXrjXvOeg A. 2L 2 2 B, ewpaKes 

Jo. 8. 57 B*, ISwiccs 17. 7 AB, 8 B, ei'A^es Ap. 11. 17 C etc. 
(W.-Schm. § 13, 16; Buresch, 219 if.; etWes Papyr. of Hyperides 
c. Philipp. col. 4 a 20). 

6. The rare optative has 3rd sing, of the 1st aor. in at (also Clem. 
Cor. i, 33. 1 eao-at), not the better Att. -etc; and a corresponding 3rd 
plur. in atev : 7rot7/o-atev L. 6. 11 BL (-etev tfA, -eiav Att. EKM al.: 
D has quite a different reading) : A. 17. 27 i/^Aa^o-etav B al., 
-etev nE, -aLcrav and ibid, tvpoicrav D, which may be correct (cp. 

1 Apollonius, Synt. i. 10, p. 37: 37, p. 71, attests ecprjKes, Zypa\J/es, ypaxperu for 
-as, -area as forms about which grammarians were in conflict. kcprfKere B* 
Mt. 23. 23. « v. App. p. 308. 

§ 21. 6-8. § 22. 1-2.] CONTRACT VERBS. 47 

LXX. cuVeo-cuo-ai/ Gen. 49. 8, aOoto-av Deut, 33. 16, W.-Schm. § 13, 14, 
note 14 ; even yevoiaav, Kleinasiat. Inschr. Bull, de corresp. hellen. 
ii. 600)/since the scribes of D and of its ancestors certainly did not 
find the optative in the living language. 

7. The plupf. of course keeps et (not e) in the plur.: TreTronJKeio-av 
Mc. 15. 7 etc. 

8. The 2nd pers. sing, of the pres. and fut. pass, and mid. 
regularly ends (as also in the older Attic) in -# ; the later Attic et 
(rju arid et interchangeable, § 3, 5) is found only in the word /2ovAet, 
borrowed by Luke from the literary language (L. 22. 42 -A77 FGE al.; 
cp. Herm. Sim. ix. 11. 9 (3ovX v , v. 5. 5 apparently fiovXei), = 6>e/W 
of the popular language. Along with -y, the termination -crat, esp, 
frequent in contract verbs in -aw, corresponding to the forms -/xat, 
-rat as in the perf., is a new formation of the popular language 
which coincides with the primitive ending, and in mod. Greek has 
affected verbs of all classes. 1 'OSwoVat L. 16. 25 : Kai^o-at 1 C. 4. 7, 
E. 2. 17, 23, 11. 18: also cfydyeoraL, TrtWat L. 17. 8. (Herm. Yis. ii. 
4. 1 TrXavao-at : Sim. i. 3 xj°«°" at [Vis. ni - 6 - 7 tne same f° rm > but 
corrupt], ix. 2. 6 eVto-Trao-at.) These should be regarded as the 
regular forms in the N.T., since 6§wa, <f>ayr), irirj are not represented. 2 


1. Verbs in -da>. — Z771/ takes rj as in Att., but iretvav, Suxpav take a 
for rj as in other Hellenist, writings (cp. e7reti/ao-a,J 16, 1). (Fromj^i/ 
1 sing. impf. e&v E. 7. 9 B for e£a>i/. 3 ) From x/o^/zat we have XPV TaL 
in 1 Tim. 1. 8 »D al., xPWV Tai -A.P, otherwise there is no apposite 
-example; xP<*vOaL is Hellenistic, cp. Clem. Cor. ii. 6, 5 A, § 21, 7, 
W.-Schm. § 13, 24. — Confusion of -aw and -eco : rjpuTow Mt. 15. 23 
kABCD, Mc. 4. 10 «0, Jo. 4. 31 C (no MS. in 4. 40 [9. 15 X], 12. 21), 
A. 16. 39 A; no other form of this vb. with ov. [ZvefipipLovvTo 
Mc. 14. 5 tfC* -fiov/jLevos Jo. 11. ^8 tfAU; /3/>t//,oixr#at, 'to be angry/ 
occurs in Xenoph. Cyrop. 4. 5. 9, -avOai in Aristoph. and Lucian, 
.§ 20, 1 ; the case therefore resembles ^o-owtfat - rjo-o-ovo-Oatj. 
Kottiovctiv Mt. 6. 28 B : — vlkovvtl Ap. 2. 17 AC, 2. 7 A 
(-ovTL B), 15. 2 C : — KareXeyovv L. 8. 53 D*KX etc. Cp. mod. 
Greek; W.-Schm. § 13, 26. — On -ao-at, 2 pers. sing, pass., see 

§ 21, 7. 

2. Verbs in -e'w. — Uncontracted contrary to the rule is eSeero 
L. 8. 38 (-etTo N a BC 2 LX, -eetTo AP formed out of -<*to with correc- 
tion et written over it), cp. Clem. Horn. iii. 63 ; 7rveet Jo. 3. 8 
according to L and Chrys.; Kareppee Apoc. Petr. 26, Phryn. 220. 
It is conceivable that the conjugation was pneo pne -is 4 -omen -ete, and 
not pnis 4 -^.—Confusion of -eo> and -aw : eXe&vros E. 9. 16 (-ovvros 
B 3 K), lAeaTe Jd. 22 NBC 2 , 23 nB (there is much variety of reading 
in this verse) ; but E. 9. 18 JAeet i*A 2 BD c L al., eAea only in D*(E)FG 
(otherwise no exx. of such forms from eAew : both forms found in 

1 2 3 v. App. p. 329. 

4 8 VERBS IN -MI. [§ 22. 2-3. § 23. 1-2. 

lxx. : 1 the tenses have rj, though edw has eacrco) : — lAAoya Philem. 
18, -et « c D corr EKL, -drat E-. 5. 13 only** 3, (and kXXoydro A); the 
Hellenistic vb. elsewhere employs -etv. 2 

3. Verbs in -oo>. — Infin. -otv ( = dav) for -ovv : Karao-KYjvotv Mt. 13. 32 
B*D, Mc. 4. 32 B*: diroSeKarotv H. 7. 5 BD* : </>t/xou/ 1 P. 2. 15 »*: 
but 7r\r)povv all uncials in L. 9. 31, and it is the constant form in 
lxx., so that the termination -otv is hardly established for the 
N.T. Cp. W.-Schm. § 13, 25 : Hatzidakis Einl. in d. neugr. Gramm. 
193. — The conjunctive is regular in evoowrcu 1 C. 16. 2 (SoOrj 
N C ACI al.) : on the other hand it takes the indie, form in G. 4. 17 
£tj\ovt€, 1 C. 4. 6 4>v<riovcr6e (just as the sing, of the conj. act. is 
identical with the indie, and in vbs. in -aw the whole conjunctive). 

§ 23. VERBS IN -MI. 

1. The conjugation in -fit, which from the beginning of the Greek 
language gradually gives way to the other conjugation in -co, and 
which has eventually entirely disappeared in modern Greek, in 
spite of many signs of decay is not yet obsolete in the N.T. In 
vbs. in -wfu (and in SXXvfii), which in Attic and other early writers 
have already a very strong rival in the forms in -(v)vw, the older 
method of formation has not yet disappeared in the N.T., and is 
especially the prevalent form (as in Att.) in the passive : Mt. 8. 25 
oLTroWv/jLeOa, 9. 17 (XTroXXvraLj etc. Active forms : 8eiKvv/ju 1 C. 12. 31 
(never -vw in this form), SecKvvets Jo. 2. 18 (never -vs), Scikwo-iv 
Mt. 4. 8 (k -vv€i\ Jo. 5. 20 (-vvei D, but ibid. D -wa-iv for &*£«), 
cp. dfJLcfiievvvcrLV §24; but airoXXvei Jo. 12. 25 (v.l. -«r€t), Sfjivvei 
Mt. 23. 20 ff. (from this verb there is no certain form in -/xi), 
ofxvvovo-iv H. 6. 16. Imperf. only in -co form: k^&vwes Jo. 21. 8,, 
(v7r)e(TTpii>vvvov Mt. 21. 8 (v.l. ecrrpwav), Mc. 11. 8 D, L. 19. 36. 
Imperat. d-iroXXve R,. 14. 15, o/ivvere Ja. 5. 12, cr/3evvvT€ 1 Th. 5. 19. 
Infin. ojjlvv€lv Mt. 26. 74, Mc. 14. 71 (-vvat BEHL al.), SeiKvvecv 16. 21 
(-ui/Gu B). Partic. d-iroXXvcov Ap. 9. 11, SaKvvovTos 22. 8 (-vvros K) ; 
but v7to{o)VVvvt€s A. 27. 1 7, dTroSeiKvvvra 2 Th. 2. 4 (-vovra AFG). 

2. In verbs in -dvat, -evat, -ovcu there are similar transitions to the 
w conjugation. ^EvvurrrjfiL R. 16. i, crwicmqcri 3. 5, 5. 8, 2 C. 10. 8 are 
a few certain relics of the active of these forms in -dvat (undoubtedly 
from the literary language) ; elsewhere this verb takes the form 
of lo-rdvecv (Hellenist.), for which la-rdv (more often than -dveiv in 
LXX.) is a frequent v.l., occasionally also the plebeian <rrdveiv 
(diroKaTacTTdveLS A. 1. 6 D, 17. 15 Karao-Tavovres D*", Mc. 9. 12 
d7roKaracrTdv€L bV*D, -no-rdvei B*). Thus : crvvio-rdveiv 2 C. 3. 1, FG 
-avcu, BD* -dv : 4. 2 crvvtcrTavres i*CD*FG, -covres D c EKL, -avovT€S 
ABP, a similar division of the mss. in 6. 4 (-covre? is also read by 
n c ) : 1 C. 13. 2 fieOto-rdvetv ACKL, -dvat kBDEFG (this is the only 
instance where a /xt form is strongly supported as a v.l.) : fxeOio-rdveL 

1 W.-Schm. § 13, 26, note 26. 

2 On this confusion of -dw and -ew see Hatzidakis, Einl. in d. neugr. Gr. 128, 

§ 23. 2-4.] VERBS IN -ML 49 

Herm. Vis. i. 3. 4. IL/z7rAai/ stands for iriinrXavai in A. 14. 17 
ifj(,7ri(fjL)7rXcov (lxx.). The passive remains unaffected by this change 
(cp. 1) : Trepucrrao-o 2 Tim. 2. 16, Tit. 3. 9, KaOicrraraL H. 5. I etc. 
(Jifj^TrifJLTrpacrOai A. 28. 6, Tisch. -a<r6ai), Kpefxarai Mt. 22. 40, Kpefxa- 
pievos A. 28. 4, G. 3. 13 O.T. quot.: so also Svvafiai, kirio-raiiai as 
usual, except that Swo/^ai, -o/xe^a, -ofxevos are read by B or B* in 
Mt. 19. 12, 26. 53, Mc. 10. 39, A. 4. 20, 27. 15 (also in the papyri), 
cp. €^€KpefjL€To L. 1 9. 48 kB : and Svvy stands for Svvao-at in 
Mc. 9. 22 £ « (or K c ) BD al., 1. 40 B, L. 16. 2 kBDP (v.l. -jj<r V ), 
Ap. 2. 2, but -ao-ai is read by all mss. in Mt. 5. 36, L. 5. 12, 6. 42, 
Jo. 13. 36 (Phryn. 359 : still Svvr) or -a is already found in Attic 
poets). Cp. W.-Schm. § 14, 17; both forms are found in Hermas, 
e.g. Svvrj Vis. ii. 1. 3, iii. 10. 8, -ao-atiii. 8. 5. — On 'io-r-qv vide infra 4. 
3. Ti0Tjfu, 8t8«|u. — The pres. indie, as in Att.; irapo&iSm is found 
L. 22. 4 ; 8l8(o only in Ap. 3. 9 AC 1 (-w/u BP, SecWa n); Ti#t, i.e. rcdei, 
for -^o-iv occurs in L. 8. 16 D. But in the impf. the forms kridei y 
zSlBov are already found in Att. and so in N.T.; 3rd plur. ZtlOow 
A. 3. 2, 4. 35 (cp. for Attic, Bekk. Anecd. i. 90), also 8. 17 according 
to D*EHLP (-co-av KAD 2 , -oa-av B, -ecaav C), Mc. 6. 56 ADN al. (-eow 
kBLA) : I6Y6W A. 4. 33, 27. 1, Mc. 15. 23, but A. 16. 4 -oo-av (-ow 
HLP), Jo. 19/'3 kB ; the forms in -ow are to be preferred. Imperat. 
ridei, Sl8ov as in Att. But Si'Sco/u in the passive goes over to the 
o) conjugation, the analogy between the two forms being very close : 
Sw&'Sero A. 4. 35 (-ore B 3 P), TraptSiSero 1 C. 11. 23 (-oro B 3 LP), and 
so 2nd aor. mid. direSero H. 12. 16 AC, cp. Mt. 21. 33 k*B*CL, Mc. 
12. 1 kAB*CKL, L. 20. 9 K*AB*CL; but a7reSoo-<9e A. 5. 8 all mss.— 
For pres. conj. see 4. 

4. . 2nd aorist active and middle. — "Ectttjv is found as an alternative 
for lo-TaOrjVy see 6 ; rlOrjfiL, S/ow/xt employ the 2nd aor. only in the 
mid., while idrjKafjLtv, -are, -av, eSco/ca/xev 2 etc. are the aor. act. forms in 
use (only L. 1. 2 has Attic 2nd aor. act. 7rape8oo-av, literary language 
in the preface). From other verbs 2/fyv, eyvcov may be added. The 
indie, is regular (for the mid. cp. 3). The conj. to eoWa (and 
StSw/u) eyviav shows great fluctuation (2 sing. S$s Mt. 5. 25) : in the 
3rd sing., which through the loss of the 1 in pronunciation had 
become identical with the 1st sing., beside 6w (StSw) and yv$ we also 
have the forms Sol (SiSoT), yvol a ov Suy (identical with the optat.). 
This last form, however, is almost confined to the Pauline Epistles, 
where the scribes often met with the optat., which was not cur- 
rent in their own day, and therefore introduced it occasionally 
for the conj. (vide infra): E. 1. 17 Suy most mss. (ow B), 3. 16 
Sc% only DEK al., 2 Tim. 2. 25 S6 V K*ACD*P (Jo. 15. 16 8c% 

1 Aide* Tisch., others 8l8uj, cp. airobibovv for -bv A Ap. 22. 2 (there is a similar 
doubt about the accent in irapadtdcau K Mt. 26. 46, D Mc. 14. 42, J. 18. 2, 21. 20). 
In Hermas tlOSj occurs Vis. i. 1. 3, ii. 1. 2 ; Clem. Cor. i. 23 airodtdoZ Examples 
from the papyri in W. Schmidt, Gtg. Gel. Anz. 1895, 45. 

2 No inference for an aor. gdwera can be drawn from ha . . . ddxry Jo. 17. 2 fc* c AC 
al. (v.l. -<rw, -crei, dwetc.) : nor yet from Mc. 6. 37 dyopda-cafiev ... d(b<r(a[xev (RBD, 
v.l. -jofiev and dCo^ev), see § 65, 2. a v. App. p. 308. 


5 o VERBS IN -ML [§ 23. 4-6. 

EGH al.; dwoSotrj D* 1 Th. 5. 15). It is more difficult to decide 
between 8$, yv<£ and Sol, yvol (the latter like foXol) : still yvtj has the 
greater attestation (Jo. 7. 51, 11. 57 [yvol D*], 14. 31, A. 22. 
24 : whereas yvol has equal or greater authority in its favour in 
Mc. 5. 43, 9. 30, L. 19. 15); also (oltto)^ all mss. in Mt. 18. 30, 
the same form or &% all MSS. in E. 1. 17, 3. 16, 2 Tim. 2. 25, 
Jo. 15. 16 (» SaW), cp. 13. 29 (So? D). — The optat. Scorj is Hellenistic 
(Phryn. 345 f., Moeris) 1 and in Paul. Epp. R. 15. 5 etc. — Imperat. 
dvdo-TrjOi and dvdcrrd A. 12. 7, E. 5. 14 O.T. quot. (-^tw, -r^re are con- 
stant), ai/a/5d Ap. 4. T (-^i A), perd/Sa Mt. 17. 20 along with 
jJL€rd/3rj0t Jo. 7. 3, Kard/3rj0t Mt. 27. 40 etc., 7rpocravdf3r}9i L. 14. 10; 
this verb also has -fid™, -jStiTe Mt. 24. 17, 27. 42, Ap. 11. 12 (-rjre B) 
like TLfAa, -are. 2 

5. Perfect active. — Of the perfects formed after a partial analogy 
to verbs in -/zi, eW^Ka limits these shorter forms to the infin. 'Ecn-avat 
L. 13. 25, A. 12. 14, 1 C. 10. 12 (no other form: also usu. in the LXX.), 
and partic. Jen-cos (in most cases : eo-rrjKcos is also found), fern, Icnwa 
1 C. 7. 26, 2 P. 3. 5, neut. lore's Mt. 24. 15 (v.l. -ws), a Ap. 14. 1 
(B -cos), but €o-tt]k6<s (n -cos) 5. 6. But the indie, remains eo-ryjKa^v 
etc. (cp. ecKOKd/zei/). On ctt^kco see § 17. From reOvrjKa we have inf. 
reOvdvai A. 14. 19 DEHLP ; reQvYjKws always. Oi8a, -as, -€, -a/xer etc. 
(Ionic and Hellenist.) ; only in A. 26. 4 (speech of Paul before 
Agrippa) lo-olctlv (literary language) ; icrre H. 12. 17 (unless it be 
imperat.; cp. § 2, 4) ; plupf. ffieiv, -ets, etc.; moods as in Att. : et'Sco, 
impt. torre H. 12. 17? Ja. 1. 19? (v.l. coo-re) E. 5.$^ (v.l. tare); 
infin. elSevcu, part. etows. 

6. Remaining tenses of the ordinary verbs in -jh. — 'I<rrav<o in 
transitive sense has fut. o-t^o-co, aor. ecrr^a-a, perf. eo-raKa (differ- 
entiated from -rjKa; first found in Hyperides) A. 8. 11. Intransitive 
are urrafmi, fut. o-r^cro/xat and crraOrjcrofiaL, aor. ecm?v and io-rd$7]v ; 
both forms in the simple vb. are identical in meaning, as in Ionic and 
Hellenist. 3 (in Att. io-rdOrjv, o-raOrjo: have a passive sense). Com- 
pounds of to-Ta/xat, e.g. dvOio-TafiaL, dv-, dc/>-, St-, e£av-, !£-, !</>- etc. take 
-7jv, -rjo-ofjicu in aor. and fut. in intransitive senses ; on the other hand 
the following also take aor. in -dr\v in passive senses : Kadio-Tafmi 
(R. 5. 19), diroKaO. (Mt. 12. 13, Mc. 3. 5 -o-rrj C, Mc. 8. 25 -cm? 

kBCLA, L. 6. 10 -o~t V k* H. 13. 19), peO. (L. 16 ; 4 )- 4 The perf. 
Zo-TrjKa has present meaning; but in Jo. 8. 44 ovk (nB*DLX al.) 
€G-T7]K€v (§ 4, 3) it has true perfect sense ' has stood/ a new formation 
related to evr-qv (T) b .< — From <j>r]fii, except for -/xt, -o-t, €<j>V (which is 
at once impf. and aor., as in Att.), no forms are represented in N.T. 

1 This -cp-qv is found in other Hellenistic writings in all optatives in -oirjv : 
Philodem.' Rhet. ed. Sudhaus, ii. 52, 144, 169, 285, eviropyr}, iroupr), ofioXoyoiy], 


2 Attic poets also have avdara, /carct^a, but other forms with 77 ; lxx. only 
has ~(ttci side by side with -crt)Bi. 

3 There is not sufficient ground for attributing a passive sense to the simple 
verb (rraSrivai in passages like L. 21. 36 (D ibid. (mfrrercu). 

4 But also without passive sense i7re<TT&67)v T> L. 4. 39, 10. 40, Clem. Cor. i. 
12. 4 ; avTeardd-nv Herm. Mand. xii. 2. 3, irapeo-r. Sim. viii. 4. 1, and so D in 
L. 4. 39, 10. 40 emffTadels. a 5 v. App. p. 308. 

§ 23. 6-8.1 VERBS IN -MI. 5 l 

— TCGtjiu has, as generally in the Hellenist, language, perf. act. reOeiKa 
(Jo. 11. 34 : Att. -?}ko), perf. mid. TeOeifxai (<twt.) Jo. 9. 22 (pass, in 
rjv reOtLfjievos Jo. 19. 41 kB for erWrj; 1 in the parallel passage L. 23. 
53 7jv Kei/xei/os according to the Att. usage, which is adhered to else- 
where in N.T. in the substitution of KetcrOat for TeOdo-Qai). 

7. "Itjjai,. — Only found in composition with dv-, d</>-, (Trap-), ku.6-, 
<tw-, and in the case of <x<£-, a-w-ir^n, (the only compounds in use in 
the popular language) with the alternative form in -to> : in -tere, -tcrat 
the two conjugations coincide. 'A^t^t (so Jo. 14. 27), -r^o-t 
(Mt. 3. 15), -ikvai (Mc. 2. 7 etc.); on the other hand -to/xei/ (so 
« c ABODE) in L. 11. 4 (Mt. 6. 12 D al., but »*B d^/ca/xev) ; a 2nd 
sing. pres. d<£ets (i.e. -tets, -ms, cp. § 6, 5, note 2), though in this case 
there appears in Att. also -tets (and nOeis) ; impf. rjcf)iev Mc. 1. 34, 
11. 16; in the passive there is fluctuation between -Uvrai, -lovtcli, 
-enyvrac (vide infra). Cp. in Hermas dforjcriv Mand. x. 3. 3, -Uvrai 
Vis. ii. 2. 4, -tovcriv iii. 7. 1. In the case of a-vvLrjfii there is only one 
undisputed instance of the conjugation in -/u : A. 7. 25 o-wievai : 
elsewhere Mt. 13. 19 o-wievros, DF -<Wros : L. 24. 45 crvvUvai, B* 
o-weu/at ; also crwtco, except in quotations, is never without var. lect.: 
Mt. 13. 13 o-vvLova-L (language influenced by O.T.: -iwcrtv B # * cp. D), 

(2 C. 10. T2 (TVVLOVCTLV [-ld(TlV tf a B, -KTaCTlV N*] ), & B,. 3. I I (TVVIUV, O.T. 

quot. (Barn. 12. 10 crwtW, but 4. 6, 10. 12 -tevat : Herm. Mand. 
iv. 2. I, x. I.3 cruvtto, iv. 2. 2 crvvUi, x. 1. 6 crvviovcrtv, Sim. ix. 12. I 
<nW; in the lxx. the forms from d^tw and crw«o are more estab- 
lished and fairly frequent, W.-Schm. § 14, 16). 'Avny/w, d.vUvrts 
E. 6. 9; KaOiefxevos A. 10. 11, 11. 5. — Tenses: N.T. has d^rjKav etc. 
like WrjKav (4 supra), the perf. -et/ca never occurs, while o-wyKare 
Mt. 13. 51, dcjyJKafiev kolI rjKokovOrJKafxev (BCD, al. -tfcrafiev) Mc. 10. 28 
may indeed give the impression of being perfects, but are still to be 
taken as aorists (cp. Mt. 19. 27, L. 18. 28, and with o-vvrjKare Aristoph. 
Ach. 101 gwrjKaO' o Aeyet). The Doric (and Ionic) perf. was 4Wa, 
pass, eco/xcu, and the latter also appears in N.T.: the form dc^kwvrai 
is to be preferred in Jo. 20. 23 (wrong variants -Uvrai, -(e)iovrai : «* 
a^e^o-erai), 1 Jo. 2. 12, L. 7. 47 f., 5. 20, 23 (also in Mt. 9. 2, 5 
against -lovrai D [5 Dn*1 -Uvrai ^[5 N C ]B, Mc. 2. 5 [-tei/rai B], 9 
[-U- »B]). On dveOrjv, dfaOrjv see § 15, 4. 

8. Eljxt. — The transition to the inflection of a deponent vb. (seen 
in ecrojjLai : in mod. Ok. universally carried out) appears in tffiYjv 1st 
pers. (differentiated from tjv 3rd pers. Lob. Phryn. 152), from which 
TJjieQa is also formed Mt. 23. 30, A. 27. 37, E. 2. 3 nB ; in O. 4. 3 
rjixev in the first instance (all MSS.) with ijfieda (kD*FO) following ; 
elsewhere rj^ev. — The 2nd sing. impf. rjcrOa only occurs in Mt. 26. 69, 
Mc. 14. 67 (Euseb. quotes the verse with ^s), elsewhere it is rjs (the ter- 
mination -o-0a occurs nowhere else) as in Hellenistic Ok. (Phryn. 149). 
The imperat. has beside tor™, eo-rcocrav the vulgar form r/Tco Ja. 5. 1 2, 
1 C. 16. 22 (Herm. Vis. iii. 3. 4, Clem. Cor. i. 48. 5), cp. W.-Schm. 
§ 14, l. c "Ei/fc (i.e. strictly evecrri, kvl=lv : cp. irdpa = irdpecrri) occurs 

1 Herm. Sim. ix. 15. 4 has redeijuevoL in pass, sense, similarly TrepLTedeijufra, 
€lem. Cor. i. 20. 4. »^ v. App. p. 308. 

52 TABLE OF NOTEWORTHY VERBS. [§ 23. 8-10. §24. 

in 1 0. 6. 5, G-. 3. 28, Col. 3. 11, Ja. 1. 17, already in the sense of 
ecr-riV ' there is/ which together with d<ri has been supplanted by this 
word, now written eTvai, in modern Greek. W. Schmidt, Atticism. 
iii. 121." 

9. Efyi. — In the popular language the verb occurs neither in its 
simple form nor in composition, ep^o/xat taking its place, § 24 ; the 
compounds only are employed by L. and Hebr. (from the literary 
language) and not always correctly. Wio-caa-cv H. 9. 6 for Att. do-ep- 
Xovtoll (eicrtWtv is fut. in Att.): €L(tiOl B Acts 9. 6 (the other mss. 
-eXOe): etcrtevai 3. 3, 20. 7, 4 D, 27. 43 : partic. L. 8. 4 (-eXOovros) D), 
Acts 13. 42, in aoristic sense 21. 17 in the /3 text, so aoristic elcryei 
21. 18, 26, -ea-av 17. 10, 15. (Clem. Cor. i. 24. 3 a-iraa-i 'departs' 
[Att. 'will depart'], cp. 54. 2 : Clem. Horn. ii. 1, iii. 63, (l7r)etcrtojy 

10. ^Hpai, K€t|xai. — Kd9r](JL(u, KaOy A. 23. 3 (cp. Svvrj, supra 3 ; SO 

already in Hyperides for -770-011), imperat. k&Qov (already in late 
Att.) Ja. 2. 3, Mt. 22. 44 etc., and O.T. for -770-0. Imperf. 
always hcaQrjUiqv § 15, 7 ; fut. KaOrjcrofxai Mt. 19. 28 (-ccrecrOe CD* 
al.), L. 22. 30 ttAB 3 al. Cp. § 24. — Kefyxat is regular : also used as. 
perf. pass, of ti(%u as in Att., supra 6. 


(The prefixing of * indicates that the paradigm embraces several stems.) 

'AYaWuiv active L. 1. 47 (Ap. 19. 7, prob. more correctly -ib/xeda B ; 

1 P. 1. 8 -are only BC*) ; elsewhere deponent with aor. (mid. ? and) pass., §20. 
The verb is absent from profane Greek (which has dy uWojulcu instead). 

'AyyeXXeiv, rjyyeXrjv constant, § 19, 3. 

"Ayciv, aor. Tjyayov and rarely ^£a, § 19, 1 ; perf. act. unattested. 

fA'yvvvai) only in composition Kardyv. (as in Att.), pres. impf. unattested : 
aor. Kared^av (Att.) Jo. 19. 32 f. , but the use of the augm. is incorrectly extended 
(§ 15, 2) to the fut. /cared£ei Mt. 12. 20, O.T., and aor. conj. pass. KareayOxjiv 
Jo. 19. 31. 

*Alp€iv, aor. etXov and -Xa, § 21, 1: fut. eXcb (late writers, lxx.) L. 12. 18^ 

2 Th. 2. 8 (v.l. dvaXol, vide inf.), Ap. 22. 19 (but mid. alprjaopLca, = Att. Ph. 1. 22). 
'Akov€iv, fut. d/cotfcrw and Attic -cro^cu, § 18, 3. 

'Akifinv for dXelv (Phryn. p. 151) : only pres. attested (aor. ifkeaa in LXX. :, 
no other form of the aor. is likely to have existed). Cp. v-qQeiv. 

"AM.€O-0(H, with compounds dv-, e£,- e<£-, almost confined to Acts: (Jo. 4. 14,. 
21. 7 D), 1st aor. r{XdfX7)v (lxx.) A. 14. 10 (Jo. 21. 7 D): 2nd aor. e<paX6juLei>os 19. 
16 (also 3. 8 €%a\6fjL. is better than -XX- of the mss.) : both forms occur in Att. 

'Afi-apTcLvciv, fut. dfiaprrjo-o}, § 18, 3 : 1st aor. rj/jLaprrjo-a along with 2nd 
aor. TjixaproVy § 19, 1. 

'Afxcfadteiv, -Lefav, -evvTuvai : see § 17. 

; AvaXovv = dvaXiaKeiv (both Att., -ovv also in lxx., W.-Schm. § 15): dvakoi 
2 Th. 2. 8 K* Origen (v.l. dvaXdaei, dveXel). Tenses regular : L. 9. 54, G. 5. 15. 

('Avt&v) : fut. airavT-fiffiti, aw-, § 18, 3. 

'AiraXcto-ecu deponent A. 4. 17, 21 for Att. dweCK^v (1 P. 2. 23) ; 
dLaireiXeicrOai as depon. is also Att. 

'AiroXcyeto-Gat deponent with pass, (mid.) aor., § 20, 1. 

Apmitciv : fut. -daw, § 18, 3 : 2nd aor. pass, -yrjp (and 1st aor. -(pdrjv ? as in 
Att.), § 19, 3. a v. App. p. 308. 


A#j*iv, av£dv€iv, both forms Att., but in transit, sense 'increase,' whereas 
'grow' is -ofiai. N.T. has -dvco trans, only in 1 C. 3. 6 f., 2 C. 9. 10 (Herm. 
Vis. iii. 4. 1 av^co, i. 1. 6 av^aas). Elsewhere -dvu (and a#£w : only E. 2. 21, 
Col. 2. 19) is used = Att. -ofiai A. 6. 7 al. : along with -avofiou Mt. 13. 32 
<N b D -07077), Mc. 4. 8 v.l., Epp. Paul, passim, 1 P. 2. 2. 

Baivciv : aor. ^p, dvdpa, -pare, § 23, 4. 

Bap€iv : pepaprifiEvos old (/Se/S. rjddev Plat. Sympos. 203 b) Mt. 26. 43, 
L. 9. 32 (Mc. 14. 40 var. lect. pep., Karapep., KarapapovpcevoL, Karapapvvo- 
jixevoL. Baptivu is the ordinary Att. word, but in N.T. besides this passage it 
•only occurs as a v.l. in L. 21. 34 DH, 2 C. 5. 4 D*FG). Elsewhere in the 
pass. : 2 0. 1. 8, 5. 4, 1 Tim. 5. 16, L. 21. 34. Also the compounds impapetv, 
,Karap. in St. Paul (/cara/3. Herm. Sim. ix. 28. 6, papovvra Clem. Horn. xi. 16). 
W. Schmidt, Atticism, iii. 187. 

BacTKaiveiv : aor. -aVa,§ 16, 3. 

[Biovv] : pLuxjai 1 P. 4. 2, for Att. -vai (the only form in which this verb 
^occurs : elsewhere £rjv, cp. inf.). 

BXcurrdvciv : pres. conj. -vrj Mc. 4. 27 jtfAC 2 al., but BC*DLA PKacrra from 
pKao-Tav, as Herm. Sim. iv. 1 pXaarQvra (W.-Schm. § 15) : a new 1st aor. -rjcra 
occurs, § 19, 1. 

BXeimv, 'to look, 'primarily and in old Greek only of the function of the eye, 
with no signification of perception : aor. gp\e\pa (Acts 3. 4) as in Att. (Jo. 9. 39 
pkeiridviv v.l. p\€\j/ix3(TLv i.e. become possessed of sight, somewhat like dvap\e\J/., 
which is so used in Att. as well as in N.T.; cp. pXexpere A. 28. 26 O.T., also 
without an object) : irepiepXe^d^v Mc. 3. 5, etc. With the Hellenistic mean- 
ing 'to see' of perception (for bpdv, vide inf.) only in pres. and impf. 
{lipop\e\l/a<Tdai = 7rpol'd<:<Tdcu H. 11. 40, see § 55, 1.) 

BovXeo-Gat, §15, 3: §21, 7. 

Tajxciv: also used of the wife (for Att. -etcr6cu) Mc. 10. 12 {-rjOrj v.l.), 1 Tim. 
5. 11, 14 etc.; elsewhere for the wife N.T. uses -ifradaL (but aor. -r\Qr\v 
1 C. 7. 39 = 4y7]fjLdfjL7}u Att. ), for which ya\xi<jKovTai is read Mc. 12. 25 E al. , 
L. 20. 34 &BL (iicya/jLL(TK. E al., e/cya/u^. A al., yafiovvrat D), 35 B (ya/xi£. ItfD al., 
e/cya/u'^.A al.). The act. yafdfav (e/cy.) 'to give to wife' : Mt. 24. ^% (ya/x. &D, 
rell. e/cy.), 1 C. 7. 38. — Aor. act. iydpLrjaa Mt. 5. 32 al., Herm. Mand. iv. 4 (so 
-rjdrjv, vide supra), for which the Att. form occurs as a v.l., yrj/xas Mt. 22. 35 
•**BL, L. 14. 20 {'{kapov D), 1 C. 7. 28 ya/^cnys ... yn/my (D*FG yafir}). 

TcXav, fut. -cto-w, § 18, 3. 

rtv€<r0ai (never yiyv. as in Att.), aor. kyevby^v and -vrjdrjv, § 20. 

riv<oo-K€iv (never y£yp. as in Att.), 2nd aor. conj. yvol and yvtp, § 23, 4. 

TpTiYopciv, § 17 ; cp. eyelpetv, Aeurdcu, edeero, § 22, 2. 

Aiaicoveiv, di7]Kovovi>, § 15, 6. AiSovcu, see § 23, 3 and 4. 

Ai\|/av, -as, § 22, 1 ; 5i^<rw, § 16, 1. Aic£k€iv, fut. -£«, § 18, 3. 

Avvao*6ai pres., § 23, 2 ; augm. 17- or I-, § 15, 3 ; fut. 8vvr)o-o/uLcu, § 20, 2 ; aor. 
■7)5vvf}6r}v (and 7}dvvdadr}v Mt. 17. 1 6 B, Mc. 7. 24 KB, Epic and Ionic). 

Av€tv intrans. 'to set' E. 4. 26 (Homeric: Att. dvojuLai), for which 5^w 
(Xenoph. and others) occurs in L. 4. 40 (dijcravros D) : aor. e'5w, tdvaa, § 19, 1 
'(e&fyo-a*', § 19, 2); hdtvovres 'creeping in' 2 Tim. 3. 6 (cp. Barn. 4. 10). 
'Ej>5ijeii> trans, 'to put on' pres. only in Mc. 15. 17 AN, correct reading 
-5l8v(tk€lv, see § 17 : so mid. evdcdixTKeadcu., see ibid.: but tenses as in Att. -idvcra, 
-d/nyv etc.: similarly e/c50<rat (pres. and impf. unattested). 

'E^pciy 'raise up' ('awake' is rather dieyeipew) : intrans. eyeipe (not -at 
.aor. mid.), sc. aeavrop Mc. 5. 41 etc. (Eurip. Iph. Aul. 624); intrans. -ojjlvu, 
'rise' (foeyetpoyuai 'awake' intrans.), aor. rjyepdTjv, § 20; perf. iy-qyeprac 'is 
risen' Mc. 6. 14 NBDL, 1 C. 15. 4 (late writers ; Att. iyprjyopa 'I am awake' 
has become yp-qyopu, § 17). 

EIA-oT8a, §23, 5: fut. eldrjaio H. 8. 11 O.T. quot. (Ionic and late = Att. 

Eliretv, 6i'pT]Ka etc. see \eyeiv. 


'EXcav-IXeciv, §22, 2. 

"EX.K€iv, aor. etXtcvaa as in Att., fat. eXKvaco Jo. 12. 32 (Att. £X£a>). 

'EXkovv : d\KcaiJ,ei>os, § 15, 6. 'E|ipptfJia,o-0ai -ovtrQai, § 22, 1 ; aor. § 20, L 

J Ep7<i^€(r0ai : 7}pya£6{i7]i' ) 7]pyaadfi7]v , etpyaa /acu, § 15, 5 and 6. 

*"Epx€<r9at. In Att. for ' to come ' Zpxov>ou is used only in the indie, conj. 
?w, inf. ttvai etc., irapf. 77a, $€«> : ' will come ' = ei/xt. When efyu fell out of use 
(§23, 9), gpxofACLL was employed throughout: fyxw^ai, Tjpxo^rjv etc., fut. iXevaofxai 
(Epic and Ionic : Phryn. 37). Aor. ^X6W and perf. €Mj\vOa as in Att. 

*'E<r0i€iv and ftrGciv (-0e«/ as early as Horn., Doric and late writers). The 
former predominates (as also in lxx.), so without var. lect. Mt. 9. 11, 11. 18 f., 
12. 1 etc. , R. 14. 2 f . , 6, 20 etc. ; but fotfiyre L. 22. 30 BD*T, iadtav Mc. 1. 6 nBL*A, 
12. 40 B, L. 7. 33 BD, 34 D, 10. 7 BD (elsewhere even Mc. and L. have iadiecv in 
all the MSS.). Fut. <f>&yofiai from aor. tyayov, § 18, 2: 2nd sing, -ecrat, § 21, 7. 
Pf. j8e/3pw/ca (from the obsolete /3t/3pc6<r/cw) Jo. 6. 13, aor. pass. /3pw#i? L. 22. 16 I> 
(fut. perf. ppcodrjaofjuiL lxx. ) ; the verb * to eat ' thus completed. (The pres. in 
the popular language was rp&yca, so always in S. John, elsewhere only Mt. 24. 38 %. 
see also Herm. Sim. v. 3. 7, Barn. 7. 8, 10. 2, 3.) 

3, Ex€lv, fut. only e£w, § 14, 1 ; similarly dvexeo-dat has only dpe^ofiaL : impf. 
and aor. dz/ei%., <be(rx-> § 15, 7. 

Zf]v, fut. £j}<tw and -ofxat, § 18, 3 : aor. 'efraa A. 26. 5, Herm. Sim. viii. 9. 1, 
for which in Att. eftiwv was introduced as a supplementary form (cp. sup. 
piovv) : perf. unattested. (Impf. 1st sing, gfrv, -tav, § 22, 1.) 

Zuvvvvcu, perf. pass, and mid. irepiefaor/jifros (Att. without <r) L.12. 35 al. 

Hk€lv : 3rd. plur. rjKacnv Mc. 8. 3 tfADN (al. TjKovaiir, B elaiv), cp. Clem. 
Cor. i. 12. 2. The transition of this verb of perfect meaning to the inflection 
of the perfect tense is found also in lxx. and other late writings, W.-Schm. 
§ 13, 2: Klihner I. ii. 3 438 : W. Schmidt, Jos. elocut. 470. 

'Hcro-ovcrGai, 2 C. 12. 13 b**BD* Tjo-adodyre (Ionic ecraovadat), with v.l. 7]tt7j67]t€ 
(the Attic form [literary lang.] as in 2 P. 2. 19 f. tjtttitcu, tjttQvtcli, and even 
iJTTrjfjLa iii S. Paul), FG in 2 C. loc. cit. ^XaTTa^re, cp. Jo. 3. 30 (literary lang.). 

(©dWeiv), aor. dvedaXov, § 19, 1 (no other form attested) ; dvaddXXco (intrans.) 
Clem. Cor. i. 30. 2. 

©avp.d^iv (-ecrdcu depon. ), aor. idatijuacra and -dffdrjv, fut. (^auyuacro/xat), -aadrj- 
cofiai, § 18, 3 : § 20, 1. 

0€a<r8ai, see Bewpeiv. 

BiXeiv not (as in Att.) edeXeiv, the ordinary word of the popular language 
for 'will' (so mod. Gk.) : beside it is found /3otfXe<70cu (literary lang.) without 
distinction of meaning, rare in the Gospels, and not often in the Epistles, 
frequent only in the Acts. — Augm. always ?)-, § 15, 3 (perfect unattested). 

*0€O)p€iv, generally defective, only pres. and impf. being used, but fut- 
Jo. 7. 3, aor. Mt. 28. 1, L, 8. 35 D, 23, 48 KBCD al., Jo. 8. 51 {-aei N), 
Ap. 11. 12; elsewhere the tenses of decLadcu (pres. impf. wanting) are used: 
aor. -aardfirjv, perf. redea/xai, aor. pass. ededBrjv. 

c I\do-K€o-9(u, mid. (Att.) H. 2. 17; IXdcrdrjn 'be merciful' L. 18. 13, cp. 
i£i\a<rd£i> ' expiated ' Plat. Legg. 862 C. 

Lrrdv€iv (tcra^), caTaadac, § 23, 2, 4, 5, 6. 

Ka9apt£€iv 'to cleanse,' vulgar form for Att. Kadaipeiv (Jo. 15. 2 D correctly 
Kadapiel, cp. H. 10. 2 ; neKaOapixhuv is found in Herm. Sim. ix. 18. 3). In 
compounds the simpler form is more attested : diaicadapai L. 3. 17 R*B (for /ecu 
dLCLKadapieX), eKKaddpare 1 C. 5. 7, eKKaddpr) 2 Tim. 2. 21. 

Ka0^€<r0at, KaO^civ, KaO-ijorOai. In Attic eKade^bfx^v aor. = ' I seated myself,' 
Kadi fa ' I seat' trans, and also intrans. ' I seat myself,' which is elsewhere ex- 
pressed by -Ifrfjuu : /cd(%tcu 'I sit' (in perfect sense). In the N.T. 'I set' or 
'seat' is Kadi fa, aor. -uxa (as in Att.) : 'I seated myself = eKadiacL (not mid.), 
so that the sense of Jo. 19. 13 is extremely doubtful: there is also a perf. 
KeicddiKev (intrans.) H. 12. 2 (the present only appears in trans, sense : for fut. 
vide inf.) ; aor. eKadeadyjv from Kadefofxcu (Phryn. 269) only in L. 10. 39 NABC*" 


al., -Lo-cura C 3 DP etc.; 'sit' is KddrjfiaL (in the majority of cases) and /caflefoucu 
(rare) : eKadefrro impf. 'sat' ('had seated himself) Jo. 4. 6, 11. 20, for which 
eKddrjTo occurs elsewhere, as in Mt. 13. 1 ; Kadeftfievos = Kadyju. A. 6. 15 
(D -rjfxevoi) etc.; fut. KaOrjaofiaL Mt. 19. 28 {-Leecrde CD* al.), L. 22. 30 NAB 3 al. 
(-tcreo-^e EF, but B* Kadrjade conj., D Kadeftade) for Attic Kadedoufiac. The 
2nd pers. of KdBt]^i is /cat???, § 23, 10 : imperat. tcddov ibid, ('sit 5 = 'seat thyself 
Mt. 22. 44O.T., Ja. 2. 3)/ 

Kcuciv : aor. and fut. pass. § 19, 3. KaX.€tv : fut. /caX^crw, § 18, L 

(Kepavvwai), perf. pass, ice /ce pacr pat (late ; Att. /ce/c/ja/mt) H. 4. 2 (tf ABCD*), 
Ap. 14. 10. 

K€p8cuv€iv (pres. and impf. unattested), aor. etcepdrjo-a as if from Kepdicj (Ionic 
and late writers) Mt. 16. 26 and passim ; but Kepddvw (§ 16, 3) 1 C. 9. 21 K*ABC 
al. (K C DE al. icepdrjeoo, as also four times in the same chap. ver. 19, 20, 22) ; 
a corresponding fut. pass. Kep^-qd^aovTai occurs 1 P. 3. 1. There is fluctuation 
also in Josephus between the Attic and the vulgar forms, W. Schmidt, de Jos. 
elocut. 451, 459. 

K\cu€iv, fut. /cXatfcrw, § 18, 3. 

KXeieiv, perf. pass. KtuXeta fiat for -eifiai, § 16, 1. 

KXiv€iv, aor. and fut. pass. iKXidrjv, tcXidri<jofi(u, § 19, 3. 

Kpdfcciv, the pres. rare in Att. (which uses Keicpaya instead) is often in N.T., 
on the other hand KeKpaya is only used in Jo. 1. 15 (see § 56, 5) : fut. Kpd£a> 
(/ce/cpd^OMat), § 18, 3 : aor. iictKpafr (lxx., from K^Kpaya) only A. 24. 21 NABC. 

~K.pCv€iv : aTToapivoixai, viroKpivofiaL, aor. and fut. § 20, 1. 

Kp^JBeiv, aor. pass. iKptiprjv, § 19, 3. 

(Kt€iv€lv) : only in compound airoKTeivu and -€^(v)cj t § 17 ; aor. pass, aire- 
KTavdyju (late) Mc. 9. 31 al. = Att. diredavov. 

(Kv€iv, Kvetv) awoKvei (-tajei) Ja. 1. 15, -Tjrjaev 1. 18 (from kijv we have ^kijojucp in 
lxx., W.-Schm. § 15). 

KvXi€iv (already in Att.; older form -ivdca) Mc. 9. 20, fut. -icrw Mc. 16. 3, 
aor. act. eKtiXicra, perf. pass. k€k\jXl<t fiai as in Att. 

AdK€tv 'to burst': eXd^aeu A. 1. 18 (cp. Acts of Thomas, § 33) as in 
Aristoph. Nub. 410 BtaXaK-rjaao-a : elsewhere unknown : to be distinguished 
from \d<TKaj ' sound ' (aor. ZXclkov). 

Aa{i.pdv€LV, fut. Xt^wt/'o/xcu, aor. pass. iXrjfjicpOrjv (Xrj/xipis Ph. 4. 15, av&XrjiAipis 
L. 9. 51 : irpoo-umoX'fjinrTrjs) as in other Hellenistic writings, § 6, 8. (The later 
mss. restore the Attic form by omitting the ju, and even in the N.T. Apocryphal 
writings practically no trace of these forms remains : Reinhold, de graecit. 
patr. apost. etc., p. 46 f.) 

(A€7€iv 'to collect'): only in avXXeyci), -£a, iKXeXeyfievos (Att. usually 
e^tXeyp.) L. 9. 35. 

^Aiyeiv 'to say 5 : Att. Xe'£o>, £'\e£a etc.; but in N.T. defective (the be- 
ginning of this defective state reaches back into Attic times, Miller, Amer. 
Journ. of Philol. xvi. 162) with only pres. and impf. ; the remaining tenses 
being aor. elirov, -a (§ 21, 1), fut. epw, perf. dpr)Ka, aor. pass, eppedrjv, p7)dr}vai, 
§ 16, 1, perf. €Lp7]fiaL. (Still Xeyeiv and direlv were felt to be separate verbs, 
otherwise we should not find these combinations : tovto eliroov Xeyei Jo. 21. 19, 
elirev Xeyoov L. 12. 25, 20. 2.) But diaXeyofiai., ^eXex^" as m Att. (Mc. 9. 34), 
see § 20, 1. 

Aeiirav : (class. ) with alternative form Xifnrdveiv, SieXiinravev Acts 8. 24 D, 
17. 13 D, vTroXiinrdveLv 1 P. 2. 21, lyKaTaXifxiravonevoi FG Euseb. Chrys. in 
2 C. 4. 9 (also lxx. ) ; 1st aor. ^Xei^a occurs occasionally instead of ZXiTrov, 

Aoveiv, XeXovficu, § 16, 1. 

(Me'Xciv) iTnfjLeXovfAaL (lxx.) or -onou. (both Attic forms) not represented: 
fut. -rjo-oficu, § 20, 2 : yLtera/zeXo/zcu (the only Att. form) 2 C. 7. 8, aor. -'fiBrjv (not 
attested in Att.) Mt. 21. 29 etc., fut. --qd-qvojAcu H. 7. 21 O.T. quot. 

MeXXeiv : fyeXXov and iffxeXXov, § 15, 3. Miaivnv : fiefAlafifmi, § 16, 3. 


Mvrj<TT€V6tv : perf. pass. jie/JLv^aTevixaL v.l., § 15, 6. 

Nrfj0€iv 'to spin' for vr\v (Ionic and late), the constant N.T. form, cp. 

NiirT€iv for vLfriv, § 17. 

(3vpgtv), pres. unattested : aor. mid. ^vpaadai as if from %vpeiv (not $-vpdcrdai 
pres.) 1 C. 11. 6 and hvpj\aaudai A. 21. 24 (both forms unattested in Att.), but 
in Acts D* has Zvpwraii tfB*D 2 EP ^vprjaoprai : perf. e^prjfxai. (Att.) 10. 11. 5. 

(Oity€iv) dvolyeiv (never -yvijvctt) : the augment is always in the a in the comp. 
diavoLyetv, d^volxd-ncraiv L. 24. 31, dtrjvoLyev 32 etc.; also in the simple vb. con- 
stantly in the 2nd aor. pass, rjvolyrjv A. 12. 10 {-x^V E al.), which is a new 
formation; in the other forms (the impf. is only attested for 5ta^.) the old 
syllabic augm. is still strongly represented : 1st aor. act. dveqj^a Jo. 9. 14 
{r}vec$%ev LX, rpoi^ev D), 17 -ijvoi^v fc*AD al., BX ^e'^-) KL d*>^£., similarly 
ver. 32 : in verses 21, 26, 30 B also has -fjvoi^ev, and this form deserves prefer- 
ence (cp. A. 5. 19, 9. 40, 12. 14, 14. 27, Ap. 6. 1, 3 etc.); — perf. (intrans. as 
in late writers) dviopya Jo. 1. 52 (fyeyyora tf), 1 C. 16. 9, 2 C. 6. 1 1, elsewhere 
dveipyfiac as in Att. R. 3. 13 O.T. quot., 2 0. 2. 12 {fyecpy/m. DEP), A. 10, 11 
{yve. E), 16. 27 : Ap. 4. 1 B, but NAP fye., similarly 10. 1, 8, 19. 11 (3. 8 di/. 
ABC) ;— 1st aor. pass. 6.v^%Qt\v Mt. 3. 16 (^e. B), 9. 30 (^e. BD), 27. 52, 
L. 1. 64 etc.: 7)vec>?xQ> Jo. 9. 10 with preponderant evidence (a?/. AK al.) : Acts 
16. 26 fyoLxQ. NAE, rjvecpxQ- BCD, d^e. HLP : there is diversity of reading also 
in Ap. 20. 12. Infin. dvecpx0W aL 1*. 3. 21 (-*/oi- only D), cp. supra dyvvvcu, 
§ 15, 2. On 1st and 2nd aor. (rjvoiyrjv) and fut. -yrjaopLai (-x^V cr -) see § 19, 3. 

OlKTtpciv (so to be spelt for -elpeiv), fut. oiKTiprjcrct) R. 9. 15 O.T. quot. (late). 

fOWvvcu) d7roXX., § 23, 1 : fut. dwoXiao) as also in Herm. Sim. viii. 7. 5 
( = Att. dirokG) 1 C. 1. 19 O.T. quot., so nearly always in lxx.): but fut. pass. 
diroKovpLai L. 13. 3 etc. 

* f Opdv is still more defective than in Attic, since even the pres. and impf. 
are rare (being confined to the literary language) : the popular language 
replaced them by means of p\eireiv and deoopelv. (Exceptions : opa, Spare, cave, 
-ete Mt. 8. 4 etc. [but fiXewere is also used in this sense A. 13. 40 etc.] : also 
L. 16. 23, 23. 49, A. 8. 23?, H. 11. 27, 1 P. 1. 8, Ja. 2. 24 [Ap. 18. 18, Jo. 6. 2, 
Mc. 8. 24] : in composition H. 12. 2, A. 2. 25 O.T., R. 1. 20 ; pres. and impf. 
are rare also in Hernias : Vis. iii. 2. 4, 8. 9, Mand. vi. 2. 4 : Barn. Spare 15. 8). 
The perf. is still always iopcuca {edop.), § 15, 6: aor. eldov (-a, § 21, 1): fut. 
tyofxai : aor. pass. &<pdr]v apparui, fut. dcpdr/aojaai (perf. &irrai Herm. Vis. 
iii. 1. 2 N). In addition a new present form is created A. 1. 3 
(lxx. ; Papyr. Louvre notices et extr. de mss. xviii. 2, no. 49 according to the 

'Opvo-<r€iv aor. pass. § 19, 3. 

IIai£€i,v, 7rai£w etc., § 16, 2 ; § 18, 3. Xlavciv, dvaTrarjao/Acu, § 20, 1. 

UttQew, aor. pass, eirelcrdriv, fut. 7rei(r0rjcrofjLaL L. 16. 3 1 {iciareTu(Tov(Tiv D). 

Ileivdv, -cis etc., § 22, 1 : aor. eireivaaa, § 16, 1. 

Il€ipdt€iv 'to tempt' or 'try any one' (Horn., and late writers) always for 
Att. ireipdv ; also for ' to attempt anything ' = Att. ireipdadai A. 24. 6 al. 
(TretpdadaL A. 26. 21 speech of Paul before Agrippa). 

Iltdj^iv, Tliilew. The latter = ' to press ' as in Att. L. 6. 38 (but in lxx. the 
a form is used even in this sense, e^eiriaaev ' pressed out ' Jd. 6. 2^>) I the former 
is confined to the common language = ' to lay hands on ' (mod. Gk. Tridvu), aor. 
iiriaaa, iindadriv (John, Acts, once even in St. Paul, Apoc). 

nip/irXav for -dvai, § 23, 2. 

Ilwveiv, fut. irloixai, irte<rai, § 21, 7 ; aor. eirtov, imper. Trie L. 12. 19 (Att. also 
ti0i), infin. contracted to irelv, iziv (§ 6, 5) Mt. 27. 34 N*D, Mc. 10. 38 D, 
15. 23 D, Jo. 4. 7 K*B*C*DL, cp. ibid. 9, 10 etc. (Anthol. Pal. xi. 140 in 
verse : papyri in W. Schmidt, Gtg. Gel. Anz. 1895, 40.) 

*nMrpdo-K€iv, in Hellenistic Gk. conjugated in full with the exception of fut. 
and aor. act. (so impf. act. eir'nrpaGKov A. 2. 45). In Attic it is only in the 
pass, that the conjugation is fairly complete: the act. has perf. ireirpaKa 
(Mt. 13. 46: D iird)\7}<rep), but in the other tenses yrwXeiv and dirodidovdaL 


are used. The N.T. employs the aorist of the latter of these two verbs 
(A. 5. 8, 7. 9, H. 12. 16), from the former we have 7rco\u>, eTrdohovv, e7nb\7}(ra, 
TrcaXovfjLai pass, (all used in Att. as well) : in addition to these ireirpa^ai R. 7. 14, 
iirpcLdriv Mt. 18. 25 etc. 

TLtirreiv, 'iireaov, and more frequently &re<ra, §21, 1. 

IloOetv, aor. iwddrjaa, § 16, 1. 

'Pcuvciv, pavTi£€iv. For reduplication, § 15, 6. 

c P€tv, fut. pevarW) § 18, 3 (Attic has pres. fut. petia oixai, aoristic fut. pw/jo-opccu). 

'Pttyvvvcu in the pass. Mt. 9. 17? L« 5. 6 A al. : for which prjao-eLP (-rreiv, late 
writers) appears in Mt. 9. 17 D, L. 5. 6 WBL, Mc. 2. 22 AT al., v.l. prj&i ; aor. 
typrjl-a ; the old epic word prjcraeiv = rimreiv, cp. the Attic (and lxx. ) pdrreiv 
' to dash down ' Demosth. 54. 8 is found with the latter meaning in Mc. 9. 18 
{pd<rcr€i D), L. 9. 42, lxx. Sap. 4. 19 : Hermas, Mand. xi. 3 pa&i as). To 
this word also belongs irpoeeprfeev = irpoaefiahe L. 6. 48. 

"Pwrrav and piirreiv, Att., in the N.T. the present stem only occurs in 
A. 22. 23, -ovvTojv (-ovtuv DEHL) cp. €p{p)iirrovv Herm. Vis. iii. 5. 5 : perf. 

jtepl/ULJULCU, § 15, 6. 

'Pv£<r8ai 'to save' (Epic, Ionic, and late writers) with aor. mid. ip(p)v<rdfi7]u 
•and aor. pass. ep{p)v<jdif]v (late) L. 1. 74 etc. 

SaXirt^etv, a-aXiria-oj etc., § 16, 2. 

2t](xaiv€iv, iarjfJLava) § 16, 3. 

*2kott€iv, <TK€\|/a<r0cu in Attic form one verb, since only pres. and impf. of 
GKoireiv are found, and from aKexf/. the forms -tttoiacu, eaKeTTTo/njv are absent. In 
N.T. gkottuv is used as in Att., <jK.ty. never: while ^TnaKeirrecrdai is found in the 
pres. = * to visit' (H. 2. 6, Ja. 1. 27) ; eiriGKOTreXv = ' to take care ' H. 12. 15 (e7ri- 
^KiTrTeadat ' to inspect ' Clem. Cor. i. 25. 5 ; avveo-KewTovro Ev. Petr. 43). 

2irov8d£€iv, fut. -cw, § 18, 3. 

Srqpi^civ, tenses, § 16, 2. 

Srpcovvveiv (not aropevv., which appears first in late scholiasts), § 23, 1. 

2co£€iv (t adscript, § 3, 3) : like eadid'qv (i<radbd7]v, craooj) the perf. crto-urai is 
•still found Acts 4. 9 i*A (v.l. -crrou), but o-eo-uo-fievoc E. 2. 5 all mss. , and in v. 8 
only P has the Att. form -cofievoL. 

Td<r<r€iv, eTayrji/f together with eraxdyv, § 19 > 3. 

TeXeiv, fut. reXeVw, § 18. 1. 

TiKTCiv, irexOw, § 19, 3. 

Tu*yxav€iv : the Hellenistic perf. is re'reu^a for Afct. rer^xrjKa, Phryn. 395 : 
so H. 8. 6 T^reuxei' tf c BD c E (v.l. renuxyKev P, rervxe male tf*AI)*KL, a form 
which is also occasionally found in the older editions of late writers : Lob. on 
Phryn. loc. cit ). 

*Tvitt€iv is defective and completed by means of other verbs as in Attic : 
T^n-recv, ^tutttou, 7rar<££o;, iirdra^a (pres. impf. etc. from this stem not found), 
ZiraL<ra (110 pres. and impf. found : Trpoa-eiraicrav is a good suggestion of Lachmann 
in Mt. 7. 25 for -e<rcu>), pass. TiJirTOfjuu, aor. eirXriyyjv (the only form of this verb 
Tepresented) Ap. 8. 12. 

* f Yird7€tv * to go,' ' depart,' a word of the common language (never in Acts, 
Paul, or Hebrews ; mod. Gk. irdyu, Trrjyaivw), which makes only a present 
tense (most frequently the pres. imperat.); supplemented by TropetJopLac (which, 
however, is not defective itself). 

^cuvciv, £<pdi>a, § 16, 3 : (pavfjo-o/uai (^avov/JLai), § 20, 2. 

{QavcrKCiv LXX.), #to<rK€iv {e7TL(pibaKovara Mt. 28. I, iirtyuascev L. 23. 54), an 
Ionic and Hellenistic verb, only found in composition with 81a-, eVt-, viro-, and 
♦elsewhere only in pres. and impf. (cp. <pdos, <p(os) : N.T. has fut. eirKpavaei 
E. 5. 14 a quotation (5i€<pav<re lxx. Gen. 44. 3 ; virbcf>av<jis Herodot.). 

*#€p€iv, fyeyica, -eiv etc. § 21, 1. 

^Odveiv, aor. 'tyddaa (so and £<pQr\v Attic), perf. 'e<f>9aKa (unattested in Att. ) 
1 Th. 2. 16 BD*. Meaning Ho arrive at,' 'come upon' as in mod. Gk. ; 'to 
anticipate ' only in 1 Th. 4. 15 (for which irpocpd. is used Mt. 17. 25). 

S 8 ADVERBS. \% 24, § 25. 1-2. 

#o|3€i<r0ai, (po^drja-o/JLat, § 20, 2. 

#opeiv, <pop^aoj etc. § 16, 1. 

$v€iv, in act. only H. 12. 15 (O.T. quot.) intransitive (frequently in late 
writers) ; elsewhere only aor. €(p67)i> 3 § 19, 2. 

Xcupav, x a PV cro f JLaL i § 18, 3. 

Xv(v)v€tv for %€ty, § 17 : fut. x^> §18, 2 : aor. €?x e <* as in Att. : pass. 
Kexv/mat, ixyd-qv also Att. 

tytytiv, pres. L. 21. 26 thro-: fut. perf. ^pvy^aoixai, § 19, 3. 

'HGciv, augment, § 15, 2. 

'Av€io-0<u, augment, § 15, 2 : aor. (bPTjadjarjv A. 7. 16 (Att. lirpidfi-qv, which is 
still used in the lxx. ). 

§ 25. ADVERBS. 

1. Adverbs of manner formed from adjectives with termination 
-m occasionally have a comparative with a corresponding ending in 
-repays: irapicrcroTepm 2 C. 1. 12, and constantly in St. Paul, H. 2. 1, 
13. 19 (6. 17 -6Ye/ooi/, but B -oTepws, 7. 15 -oTepoi/), Mc. 15. 14 ENP al. 
(irepLo-o-dZs tf AB al.), 7. 36 D (-ortpov kAB al.), cp. for their meaning 
arid usage § 11, 4; o-TrovSatorepojs Ph. 2. 28 (D*FG- -orepov) ; a cp. 
eo-xaTws e'xeir (Polyb.) Mc. 5. 23. Elsewhere such comparative 
adverbs take -repov, which is also the predominant termination in 
Attic, and from -(t)cov the constant adverbial form is -(i)ov (fieXnov 
etc., Attic has also the adverbial ending -6Vws). b ' Well' is /caAws, no 
longer ev (except in E. 6. 3 O.T. quot., A. 15. 29 literary language : ev 
TToielv 'to benefit' anyone, only in Mc. 14. 7); ' better' is Kpeio-crov 
(1 C. 7. 38). AtirXorepov ' in double measure' Mt. 23. 15 (late). — On 
dvcorepov, Karoyrepio, iroppiortpov (-repo)) see § 11, 5. We have an 
instance of a numeral adverb 7rpwTO)s in A. 11. 26 «BD 2 (irpcoTov 
A al., D* reads differently), £0. 'for the first time,' cp. Clem. Horn, 
ix. 4 toi/ irpo)TO)s avay Kacravra, xvi. 20 irpcoros €<fi6ey £qj, a Trpurais tjkov- 
orafiev, always used of the first appearance of something. Similarly 
in Polyb. vi. 5. io, Diod. Sic. iv. 24 rore 7rpc6rcos etc., Phryn. Lob. 
311 f. — An in stance of an adverb formed from a participle (according 
to classical precedent) is <£eiSo/zeva>s 2 C. 9. 6 (Plutarch). 

2. In adverbs of place the distinction between 'where? 'and 'whither?* 
is not always preserved even in classical G-k. (eV#a, ivravOa, evddSe, 
dvio y Kara), eicro), e^w); 1 in the JST.T. there is no longer any distinction 
whatever, in the same way that lv and eh begin to be confused (§ 39, 
3). TLov is ' where ? ' and ' whither ? ' (vol has disappeared) ; to it 
corresponds ou, oirov (ttov indef. is only in H. 2. 6, 4. 4, and in the 
sense ' about' in R. 4. 19; fo^rou H. 2. 16). 'Here' ('hither') is 
expressed by evOdSe in L. (esp. in Acts) and Jo. 4. 15 f. (nowhere by 
ivravOa), but usu. by <SSe (in Acts only 9. 14, 21), which no longer 
has its original meaning ' thus ' (from Ss - 8e) : Att. also occasionally 

1 But Attic writers still have beside efo-w, e£w the forms evSov, ivros, e/cros to> 
express the answer to the question 'where?'; accordingly Phrynichus 127 con- 
demns the use of efoco in answer to this question, in spite of the instances that 
occur in poetry and prose. N.T. never has evdov, and only rarely ivros, curbs 
(the latter most often in St. Paul), which are still correctly used to answer 
the question * where ? \ abc Vm ^pp. p. 308. 

§25. 2-5.] ADVERBS. 59 

uses &8€= l hither.' 1 'There' ('thither') is l/cet, in scholarly language 
e/<eto-€ A. 21. 3, 22. 5 (D €K€l) = ' there,' as in Pap. Oxyrh. i. p. 119 
€K(e)t(T6 8iaTpi/3ovoriv. 2 Cp. 6/xocre for ojxov A. 20. 18 D joined with 
6vtu)v ; Travraxov 'to every quarter' Mc. 1. 28, dXXaxov 'to another 
place' ibid. 38, Lob. Phryn. 43 f. — The local adverbs in -y are no 
longer represented except Trdvras iravraxy {-ov HLP) 'everywhere' 
A. 21. 28; iravry re koli iravraxov 24. 3 appears to mean 'in every 
way and everywhere.' 

3. Adverbs answering the question 'whence?' with termination 
-dev : iroOev (iroOev nowhere), oOev (cnrodev nowhere), evOev (opposed to 
€K€t, unclass.) Mt. 17. 20 (evrevdev C), L. 16. 26 ( = Attic evrevdev, 
ivOevSe), elsewhere evrevOev, which is also used for Attic evOev in the 
phrase Jo. 19. 18 evrevdev koX e vrev Oev = Attic evOev /cat evdev (Ap. 
22. 2 evr. kolI eKeWev AB, evr. kcu evr. some minuscules, evOev kolI &*, 
evOev add. K c ). 'Thence' is eKeWev; Other forms are TrdvroOev (iravra- 
XoOev Mc. 1. 45 EGU al. as in Attic prose), dXXaxoOev. — The termina- 
tion -Oev has become stereotyped and meaningless in most cases in 
the words ewOev, e^dev 'within/ 'without,' as is often the case even 
in Attic Gk. (they have the meaning 'from within,' 'from without ' in 
Mc. 7. 18, 21, 23, L. 11. 7 : these forms are never used in answer to the 
question 'whither?') : also in kvk\60€v Ap. 4. 8 (Att.) : and .the ter- 
mination is entirely without force in efiirpoo-Oeu, owtcrOev, as it is from 
the earliest times. On the other hand dvojOev = 'from, above' (KaroySev 
does not appear) ; oV' dvwOev ews Karen in Mt. 27. 51 (aV om. »L), Mc. 
15. 38 is like aVo paKpoOev beside [xaKpoOev Mt. 26. 58 (aVo om. tfCF 
al.), Mc. 15. 40, 5. 6 (aVo om. AKL al.) etc. (also used in conjunction 
with Lcrrao-Oai, so that aVo and -Oev both lose their force), €k -iraiSiodev 
Mc. 9. 21 (without €K AX al., D £k 7r<uSos), cp. (dir\ e£) ovpavoOev 
Homer, Acts 14. 17 (without prep.) ; later writers are fond of reviv- 
ing this kind of expression Lob. Phryn. 46. MaKpodev first occurs- 
in Hellenistic Gk. ( = Attic 7r6ppo)0ev which occurs in L. 17. 12 with 
ecrrrjerav, H. 11. 13), also 7rat8(i)6$ev is first found in late writers (Lob. 
Phryn. 93) ; on the other hand the classical eyyvOev is absent from 

4. Adverbs of time. — TLore, irore, ore (oiroTe only L. 6. 3 AEHK al., 
ore kBCD al.), rore; besides these (dXXore is wanting) 7rdvroT€ fre- 
quently in St. Paul for del 3 (mod. Gk. and late writers, cp. Phryn. 
103), and occasionally in Mt. Mc. L. (never in Acts), H. 7. 25 (never 
in Epp. Oath.) ; del only occurs in [Mc. 15. 8 ACD al., om. fcBA] 
A. 7. 51, 2 C. 4. 11, 6. 10 [Tit. 1. 12 quot., H. 3. 10 O.T.], 1 P. 3. 15 
(om. A Syr. Euseb.), 2 P. 1. 12. — ILr]VLKa etc. do not occur, only 
tyiKa in 2 C. 3. 15 f. (modelled on O.T. language). 

5. The waning of the system of the correlative adverbs is seen 
chiefly in the indefinite adverbs, of which irore alone is in ordinary 

1 Hermas frequently has &8e K&icelae 'hither and thither,' Mand. v. 2. 7 etc. 

2 For e/cet in A. 18. 19 BHLP have avrov, which is only found elsewhere in 
Mt. 26. 36 (om. «C*), A. 15. 34 /3 text (?), 21. 4 (not without var. lect.). 

3 In Hermas the use of del instead of iravrore is one of the indications which 
mark the forged conclusion of Simonides (Sim. ix. 30-x.). 

•6o ADVERBS— PARTICLES. [§ 25. § 26. 1-4. 

use (ttws only in etVcos, p^ws : on 7roi> [tto^cv] see 2 and 3); also in 
the indefinite relatives, which become confused with the definite- 
forms (§§ 13, 3; 50, 1), and then in some cases (for biroOev sup. 3 3 
o7tot€ 4) entirely or almost entirely disappear. 

6. On compounded adverbs see § 28, 7. 


1. In the use of particles the New Testament language is poor in 
comparison with the classical, not only because a considerable num- 
ber of old particles are completely absent, but more especially because 
many of the remainder are only employed in a limited way. The 
Syntax will treat of the manner of employment and the combinations 
of the individual particles; here we merely give a table of those 
which are represented and those which are absent, together with 
remarks on the form of some of them. 

2. Particles (and conjunctions) or combinations of particles in the 
1ST.T. : aAAa, apx, av, apa (dpaye), apa (apdye), <xyj<h(s), yap, ye, 8e, 8tj, 
8i]7rov (one ex.), 8lo, 8i07rep, 8l6tl, £dv, idvwep, el, eiirep, elra, etre, eirdv, 
kirei, i7r€i8rj, €7rei8rj7rep (one ex.), \eirei7rep R. 3. 30 V.I.], eirena, ews, rj, 
[?/, more correctly d (see § 3, 6), in el p^v O.T. quot. j,rjS^, fjviKa (see 
§ 25, 4), [yjTrep v.l. in Jo. 12. 43], r/TOt, cva, kolOol, KaSdwep, kolOo, kolOotl, 
kolOws, koll, Kaiirep, KatToi(ye), pkv, puevovvye, /xevTot, [/iiYjcu(s), v.l. for 
jut, ov\ parj, ftrySe, \_firjv only in ei pafjv, vide sup.], p/re, p^ri, rat, 1/77 (one 
ex.), o/xo)?, 07TOT6 (one ex.), oVwg, oral/, oVe, oVt, ov (ov>(fc), oijSe, ot;/<o{;i/ 
(one ex.), ovv, ovre, (Trep as in Att. prose only in combinations : 8i6irep, 
€L7T€p etc.), ttXtjv, irpiv, re, (tol only in kolltol, fitvToi etc. ; but accord- 
ing to Theodoret in R,. 4. 16 Sia rot tovto), roiyapovv, tolvw, a>s, 
wcrdv, docrec, (ocnrep, (ocrTrepei, cocrre. 1 

3. The following Attic particles are entirely wanting : drdp, are, av, 
yovv, 8r)6ev, 8f)Ta, eWe, /xa, psqroi, /zcoi/, vvv, oirorav, (ovkovv), ovti, ovtol, 
rews. But the limitation of the rich store of particles began at an 
early period, as may be shown e.g. by the fact that in the 'AOr/vaicov 
IloXirela of Aristotle not only all the last-named particles with the 
exception of are are absent, but also, besides others, the following 
.among those enumerated under 2 : apa, apa, dxpt, ye, 8j]7tov, SioVep, 
8l6tl, edvirep, ehrep, etre, kTrei8r}7rep, (kireiirep), rjviKa, (^Vep), tjtol, 
KatroL, /zerowye, (/xevrot?), l^XPh fir}™, vac, vtj, o//,a>s, oVoTe, ovkovv, 
ov\i, rocyapovv, rot vvv. 

4. 'Edv is the Hellenistic form for 'if (cp. eavrov, a-eavrov), not 
7]v or dv ; dv however is found in the mss. of the N.T. in some few 
instances, so Jo. 12. 32 B, 13. 20 (edv DEFG al.), 16. 23 BC al., 20. 
23 Us (edv AD, semel »*), Acts 9. 2 nE. This may perhaps be 
connected with the disproportionately greater encroachment which 
idv made into the province of dv, out of which a kind of interchange 
of meanings between the two words might easily grow (modern Gk. 
uses edv and dv for 'if'). 'Edv is found very frequently after 

1 Hermas has further /ecu [ify Mand. iv. 1. 8, V. 1. 7 (Barn. 9. 6) and yovv 
{ = odv, as also in other late writers, see Steph.-Dind. yovv), Sim. viii. 8. 2 ; Bar- 
nabas has wepas ye tol in 10. 2 and elsewhere. 

§ 26, § 27. 1-2.] WORD-FORMA TION. 6l 

relatives in the N.T., as in the lxx. and the papyri: 1 Mt. 5. 19 6V 
edv (immediately followed by os 6" av), 8. 19 ottov Zdv, 10. 42 6s eav 
(BD av), 11. 27 <S eav (av D) etc.; in St. John only in 15. 7 (av B), 
1 Jo. 3. 22 (B av), 3 Jo. 5. 


1. The formation of words is naturally carried further in the 
Hellenistic language than in the classical to meet new requirements, 
but in all essentials the old patterns are adhered to. 

Verbs from noun forms in -os have termination -6a> : dvao-rarovv,. 
aTToSeKarovv (in the older lang. SeKareveiv), dvaKauvovv (class, -tfetv), 
d<f>virvovv ' to fall asleep ' (-ifav in class. Gk. = ' to awake/ -ovv in 
Hellenistic Gk. has the same meaning ; ' to fall asleep ' in the older 
lang. = KaOvirvovv, cp. kwiKaOvTrvovv Barn. 4. 13), SoXlovv 'to deceive 7 
(SoXios) R. 3. 13 O.T. quot., OepieXiovv, KecfraXatovv (-Xtovv tfBL) 
Mc. 12. 4 appears to mean 'to beat on the head ' = KoXa^eiv, 
but is quite unparalleled in this sense (cp. Lob. Phryn. 95), Kparatovv, 
SO also oSevovv from to crOevos, (lv)8vvapiovv from Swaps, veKpovv, 
crapovv — craipeiv (from crdpos : Lob. Phryn. 83), yapirovv from x^P 1 *- 
Verbs in -€« are principally compounds, see § 28, but there is also 
Svvareiv from Svvaros (aSwaretv is old). For e^ovSevt^eiv (Plut.) 
N.T. generally has igovOevetv (lxx.), with -Oevovv as a v.l. in Mc. 9. 
12. — In -i^etv or (after an t) -a£eiv : aytafetv (aytog, old form ayt(etv), 
at^/xaAa>Tt^*etv ? dvaOe/JbaTi^etv, ave/z^etv (old form -fiovv), 8oy peart i^etv, 
SeiyfJiaTifciv, evracfrid^eiv, Oearpi^eiv, dvcrtd^eiv for 6vetv (Overlap i/xaTtfeiv 
(from TpLa = €ipia, not from Ifidriov ; tpxrtoyxos appears already in 
Polyb.), lov8at^eLV, a fJLVKTrjpi^€iV 9 vrjirtdfaiv (Hippocr.), opdptfav, ireXtKt- 
(etv (Polyb.), o-ivtd^eiv ((rtvlov 'sieve/ also a late word; old form 
craw, then crrjQa)), (8ia)crKop7ri£€iv (old-Ionic, Phryn. 218), (T/JLvpvlfav 
cnrXay)(Vi^€orOaL from cnrXdy)(va d^^H, (rvpLpLopcfrifeLV, cfrvXaKifav 
from cj>vXai<r) ' prison ' ; in Hermas crvvariteiv from o-weros, Mand. iv. 
2. 2, cp. cro^fcfeiv 'to make wise' (lxx.) 2 Tim. 3. 15? — Verbs in 
-€v<x) are likewise formed from the most various stems : (atx/xaAa)T€ua> 
only in 2 Tim. 3. 6 as a v.l. for -rifa, vide supra ; -evco Diod. Sic), 
irayi8eveiv (jrayLs), (k£)oXed peveiv (LXX. passim) : yvpLvrjTeveiv (-ireveiv) 
from yvfAvrjTrjs (§ 3, 6), fiecriTevaiv from fieo-trrjs (Polyb.) 'to be naked/ 
'to be a mediator/ SO too lepaTtvetv (like fiacriXeveiv, f)yepLoveveLv)i on 
a similar pattern eyKparevecrOat ' to behave as an eyKparrjs ' (Aristot.) 
like eipwveveo-daL : SO TrepirepevecrOai 1 C 13. 4, TrapafioXevto-Oai Ph. 
2. 30 (nowhere else) 'to show oneself 7rapdf3oXos 7 ('foolhardy'), 
dvatSeveo-Oai (avatS^s) Herm. Vis. iii. 7. 5, aKpi/SevecrOaL Barn. 2. 10. 
— In -vvbi we have o-KXrjpvva) (like /SaOvvb), firjKvvo)). Cp. W.-Schm.. 
§ 16, 1. On new present formations like crriJKO), yprjyopa) see § 17. 

2. Verbal substantives in -^os, denoting an action : aytacr^os, 
paTTTiGrpLos, evra<ptaarfjb6s (-a£a> 1), 6v€l8l(tjul6s, irapopyicrpLos, 7T€tpacrfi6s, 
pavTicrpLos, <ra/3/3aTi(T[JL6s (from ora/3f3art((i), not in N.T.), o-bxfipovLCTfAOS 

1 For exx. see Berl. Aeg. Urk. no. 12. 18, 13. 10, 33. 16, 46. 17 etc. 
a b v. App. p. 309. 

62 WORD-FORMA TION BY [§ 27. 2. 

all from verbs in -t£o>, -a£a>, whereas with other verbs the tendency 
to form such derivatives (oSv^os, apS/xos and others in the earlier 
language) appears to have almost died out ; we only have a^eXey/tos 
from aVeAeyxco, apirayfios from apwdgj) : and in Hermas o-vjjLcfivppLos 
Vis. ii. 2, 2 », TrAaTvor/xos Mand. v. 2. 3 (Clem. Cor. 3. 1). But 
substantives in -|ia (generally denoting the result of the action) are 
formed from verbs of all kinds: dyvor^ia 'a sin/ aiTiwfia A. 25. 7 
{a strange form instead of the old alriafia ' an accusation ')/ 
avTowroSo/Aa (old form -o-is), avrA^/xa 'an instrument for drawing 
water,' a strange form (elsewhere dvrXrjTTjp, -Trjpiov), diravyao-fia, 
dirocTKiao-fia, f3dirTL<jfxa (cp. supra -ct/jlos, which is never used of John's 
baptism, and of Christian baptism only in Col. 2. 12 tf c BD*FG, cp. 
H. 6. 2 ; the distinction of meaning is preserved : /5a7rrto-/xds is the 
act of immersion, in /Sa7TTtcr/xa the result is included), 2 e^epa/za, 
y]TTr]fjia, Oe\y)fJLa 9 lepdrevpLa (leparevtiv 1), KaraXv/Jba (Hellenistic for 
Karaywyetoi/ ; here also there is a peculiar use of -fia for the place 
of lodging), Kar6p6o)fMa (Polyb.), Trpoo-Ko/x^a ; Hermas has fiaTaLWfia 
' a vain thing ' Mand. ix. 4, peOvo-fia ' an intoxicating drink ' vi. 2. 5 
etc. (also in Philo, like eoW/za). Abstract nouns, again, take 
termination -o-ts, and are mainly formed from stems that end with 
s, vowel (not from verbs in -£w, where -07x0s is used) : /3ia)o-is, 
eirLTToOrjcrcs, OeXiqcris H. 2. 4 (elsewhere -?//xa), Kardw^is R. 11. 8 O.T. 
quot. (Karavvircreiv ' to stupefy' Dan. 10. g), s 7re7roi0rjcris (irkuroiOa^ 
Phryn. 294 Lob.), irpoo-KXliris (Polyb.), irpocrxvo-is (dfidprrjo-is Herm. 
Yis. ii. 2. 5). Nouns in -€id are from verbs in -ev(o: dpeo-Keia (apeovcos, 
-cTKevofxaL, -eta; Polyb.), kpiOeia (Aristot.), Upareta (-ev<x) sup. 1), 
jxe6o8eia (-evetv is Hellenistic from /zetfoSos)? The termination -fiovrj 
occurs in a few instances : 7rXrjcrfxovrj (old), new forms ireio-povy) from 
7T€l0u) and €7ri\r]crfiovr) Ja. 1. 25, LXX. Sir. 11. 29, related to eTrtXrjcrpLoyv. 
Without suffix is ot/coSo/x^ ' edification ' or ' a building,' a new word, 
and strictly speaking incorrectly formed instead of -la or -770-fcs, 
Lob. Phryn. 490 (the formation Soprj belongs to a primitive word 
Sefxio, not to oLKoSofjLza)) ; but cp. Trapao-Kevrj from -afw and esp. the 
Attic fju(r6o<f>opd. — New nouns to express the doer are formed in 
-ty)s (no longer in -Tcop, -rrjp) : /3iaorTrjs, /3a7TTio-TJ]s, yoyyvo-rrjs, StwKT^s, 
86tt]s (old form Sorrjp), eAA^vto-rrys from -[(etv 'to speak Greek,' 
so the Greek-speaking Jew A. 6. 1 etc., evayyeXta-T-qs, XvTpctTrjs, 
/xepfco-r^, 7rpoan<vvr}TY}s ; such words, as is shown e.g. by Mt. 11. 12 
fiidtjzrai — fitacTTaL, Jo. 4. 20 ff. irpocrKvveiv — 7TpocrKvvr}Tai, are coined 
with almost the same facility as verbal forms. With hrev^vT^ i an 
upper garment ' Jo. 21. 7 (already in Sophocles) cp. the German 
* Ueberzieher ' [English ' overcoat ']. — In -rrjpLov (from -rrjp) are 
IXao-TtjpLov (on a-iOTrjpiov inf. 6.), aKpoaTrfpiov. — It is noticeable that 
words in -/xa in the Hellenistic language follow the analogy of those 
in -o-ts and -rrjs (-tos) in so far that they, like the latter, now prefer 
the verbal stem ending in a short vowel and avoid the stem with 

1 AlTLcacris in Eustathius p. 1422. 21 is compared. 

2 Joseph. Ant. 18. 5. 2 uses pawTia/jLos of John's baptism. 

3 Fritzsche, Paul, ad Rom. ii. 558 ff. a v. App. p. 309. 


a long vowel : Sofia like 86ons 86rr]s, Oefia (already in old Doric) like 
Veens 6eTos, whence dvdOefia = Att. -Orjfia, 1 SO 7ro/xa = Att. Trw/xa, 
/cAt/xa, KptfJia, even avao-T€/za for -crT^/xa 2 (true Stem crra), 8idcrT€fi.a 
A. 5. 7 D (but Karaxrrrj/jLa Tit. 2. 3), 00(c) tAc/Aa D Mt. 6. 12, D* K. 4. 4. 

3. Substantives from adjectives: with termination -ottis: dytorys, 

uyvorrjs (old form dyveta from -evco), d8rjX6rrjs, dfaXorrjs A. 2. 46 
from dfeXrjs 'simple/ 'plain,' Hellenistic (elsewhere the subst. is 
always dcfreXeia), yvfxvorrjs, fxaTaiorqs, /xeyaAetor^s ; corresponding 
forms from substantives are Oeorrjs (Lucian), dSeX^orrjs (1 and 4 
Mace, Dio. Chrys.) in concrete sense 'the brotherhood' 1 P. 2. 17, 
5. 9 (Clem. Cor. i. 2. 4 ; in abstract sense Herm. Mand. x. 1. 4), 
KvpioTrjs in concrete sense 'principality' (an angelic order) E. 1. 21 
(abstract Herm. Sim. v. 6. 1) etc. — With -<rvvr\ : from adj. in-(/x)coi/, 
with which this formation is specially frequent (o-w^poo-vvq, 
jxvrjiJioo-vvr]), iXerjfjLoo-vvr) (already found in Callimachus : in N.T. usu. 
in concrete sense ' alms ') : from adj. in -os (like SiKatoorvvr), 
<xK€paio<rvvrj Barn. 10. 4), but with lengthening of the antepenultimate, 
as in the comparative, when the syllable preceding it is short : 
uya6o)(Tvvrj, dyLoyvvvr}, pLeyaXujo-vvr) ; tepojer vvq ( = tepewcr. from tepeco- 
which is from lepevs) occurs in the older language. With -ia : 
*Xa<j>pia, irapa^povta 2 P. 2. 16 (from irapd^pbiv -oveiv, cp. evSaijAOVLa). 

4. Substantives from substantives : The feminine in -to-o-a is the 
correct form corresponding to masculine in -t£, &olvl£ Qoivicrcra, 
but in the later language this becomes an independent suffix 
{/3a\dvicrcra from /SaXavevs, /SaariXccro-a, TaXaTLcrcra), SO in N.T. 
^vpo(f>oiviKLcrcra from *2vpocf>oLVL£ (Lucian) Mc. 7. 26 (v.l. ^2vpa<p. i.e. 
~2vpa <£>. : T> Qoivicrcra, Latt. 'ZvpcxfioLvuro-a). 3 — Of Latin origin are 
the designations ending in -tavos derived from proper names, in the 
N.T. 'HpwoWot 'adherents of Herod' Mc. 3. 6 etc., and XprjcmavoL 
from Xp-qa-Tos — Xpio-ros, the heathen designation for Christians 
A. 11. 26, 26. 28, 1 P. 4. 16 (on rj cp. § 3, 6), formed on the model 
of Pompeiani, Caesariani ; in later times this form was frequently 
employed for the names of sects. 4 — Diminutives are, in keeping with 
the whole character of the N.T., not abundant; some, however, 
had become popular expressions, such as iraiS'iov, TraiSdpiov, TraiStcrKr) 
(old), a ipix^ov 'bread-crumb' (only in N.T. from \J/[g), irTepvytov, 
wTtov, dyrdpiov 'ear' (the latter form in Mc. 14. 47 nBC, Jo. 18. 10 
KBC*LX) of the part of the body considered as such (Moeris says 
<1)tlov is Hellenistic for Attic ovs), b whereas ovs (together with aKoi]) 
denotes the organ of hearing regarded as such ; St. Luke, therefore, 
atticises when he uses ovs for the part of the body (L. 22. 50 : wtlov 

1 Also in the sense of 'votive offering' L. 21. 5 according to NADX (B al. -Brinavi). 

2 Buresch, N. Jahrb. f. kl. Philol. 1891, 539, cod. A lxx. 

3 W.-Schm. § 16, 2 c, who explains it as due to a form Qolvlkis {paaiXis), and 
cites for ^oLvlKtaaa Herodian L. ii. 455. 19 (but see ibid. i. 268. 14, ii. 708. 10). 

4 R. A. Lipsius Ursprung des Christennamens (Jena 1873) ; Blass, Hermes 
xxx. 465 ff. 

5 The popular language was fond of denoting the parts of the body by diminu- 
tives (Lob. Phryn. 211 f.), so modern Gk. fiari e eye' from dfi/xdnov, avri 'ear' 
(also acofidnoj/ Clem. Horn. v. 1, and as early as Isocrat. Epist. 4, 11). 

a v. App. p. 309. 

64 WORD-FORMATION. [§27. 4-6. 

DK). Besides these we find kXlvlSiov L. 5. 19, 24, KXivdpiov (Lob. 
Phryn. 180) A. 5. T5 kABCD (v.l. kXlvw), ptpXapiSiov Ap. 10. 2, 8ff. 
(Herm. Vis. ii. 1. 3 v.l. /3t/3Aioaptov, cp. XidapLSiov late writers), formed 
from /3if3XdpL(ov) + -i8tov (only here)." The following diminutives 
contain a subjective idea and belong to the special class of viroKopio-- 
tikol [endearing terms] : Kwdpiov Mt. 15. 26 f., Mc. 7. 27 f.* IxOvSiov 
Barn. 10. 5, ywaiKapiov (also contemptuous) 2 Tim. 3, 6, also 
probably oVaoioi/ Jo. 12. 14 (elsewhere 6'vos) : with the subjective 
sense of love pa/38[ov Herm. Sim. viii. 2. 9. — Formed with -uov or 
-lov is el8o)X€Lov or -tov (§ 4, 2) from et'SwAo^ (also lxx.). 1 — With -wv 
we should not reckon eXaaov ' mount of olives,' which should rather 
be written lAatwr gen. plur. (with variant form in A. 1. 12), but no 
doubt dfaSpuv 'privy' Mt. 15. 17, Mc. 7. 19, cp. K07rp6v, 7repio-T€peuv y 
and others. 2 

5. Adjectives from verbs. — IIet#os would be formed directly 
from a verbal stem, did not this word in 1 C. 2. 4 owe its origin 
to a patent corruption (7T6l0ols written for -ol). In -tos (verbal ad- 
jectives) there are many instances of compound words (see § 28, 5) ; 
an uncompounded word is iraO^ros 'capable of suffering' A. 26. 23 
(Plutarch), in the narrower sense of words in -tos ; on the other 
hand in the more general sense, equivalent to a perf. part, pass., we 
have (titicttos Mt. 22. 4 'fattened,' ypairros K. 2. 15 ' written ? 
(besides compounded words). With the rare suffix -wAos we have 
afJLapTwXos LXX. N.T., cp. faiScoXos. 

6. Adjectives from nouns (and participles). — In -tos o-om/oto? 
(old) ; from which the substantive rb a-uir^piov is formed, in lxx. 
'a thankoffering/ also in the N.T. L. 3. 6, A. 28. 28 etc. = 'salvation': 
cp. y ^evKTTjpia A. 27. 40 (only here, (evKrrjpcos is old). From the 

LXX., again, is Xabs Trepiovcnos Tit. 2. i4 = *-J,D^p to 'a people of 
possession,' = os 7T€0t€crTi, ov 6 Oebs 7r€pLe7rotrjcraTO eavrco, cp. Jerome 
ap. Tisch. ad loc, Lightfoot, Fresh revis. of Eng. N.T. 260 ff. Another 
equally singular word is emoijonos Mt. 6. 11, L. 11. 3 which cannot 
well be derived from any other source but rj eirtovcra sc. rj/JLepa (A. 16. 1 1 
and elsewhere in Acts), so that its meaning is 'bread for the coming 
day': see the detailed exposition in Lightfoot, pp. 217-260. Origen 
(i. 245) was not acquainted with the word either in literature or 
in the colloquial language, and it must therefore be an artificial 
translation of an Aramaic expression. An obscure word in -ucds is 
7rto-Tt/<os Mc. 14. 3, Jo. 12. 3 (vapSov 7ri(rTLK7)s), which should perhaps 
be rendered ' genuine' and be derived from ttlo-tos or irco-ris, but 
may on the other hand have an entirely different origin, W.-Schm. 
§ 16, 3 b. Other forms in -t/co? (or -a/cos, after 1) are KvptaKos (rjpiipa 
Ap. 1. 10, SeL-irvov 1 C 11. 20), ctk€V7] Kepa/uLiKa Ap. 2. 27 with V.l. 

1 For -eiov 'kiroWwvelov and the like are quoted as parallels, but even there 
<ov is at least in the majority of cases the correct form, 'AwoWdbvLov. But 
fjiovaeZov , Kairrfkeiov may be compared. In the lxx., e.g. in 1 Esd. 2. 9 AB 
have -lov. 

2 For details see Fischer, Vitia lexicorum N.T. 698 ff. 

« b v. App. p. 309. 

§ 27. 6. § 28. 1-2.] WORD-FORMATION. 65 

-etfca i.e. ' the vessels of the potter ' (Kepa^vs, but the more natural 
meaning is ' earthen/ so that the word is incorrectly used instead 
of K€pajx€ovs, Lob. Phryn. 146), o-apKLKos — 6 belonging to <rdp£/ 'of 
the nature of o-dp£ ' (opposed to TrvcvixariKos), in the mss. occasionally 
confounded with crdpKivos ' consisting of flesh ' (like \16lvos and N.T. 
oa-rpdKcvos) 2 C. 3. 3 (-lkos R. 15. 27, 1 C. 9. 11, 2 C. 1. 12 [FG- 
4vq\ 2 C. 10. 4, 1 P. 2. 11, also 1 C. 3. 3 according to k al. [D*FG- 
-ivoi\ ; in the similar passages R. 7. 14, 1 C. 3. 1, H. 7. 16, while the 
best tradition is in favour of -lvos, the sense demands -lkos, since 
there is an antithesis with TrvevfianKos). In -ivos we have adjectives 
of time (as in class. G-k. fiecrrjfji/Spivos): 6p9piv6s l L. 24. 22 (opdpiai 
K 2 P al., an atticising correction, Lob. Phryn. 51 : ^vos also in Herm. 
Sim. v. 1. 1), TTpmvos (older form Trpcotos, irpwos), KaSrj/jieptvos A. 6. 1, 
Herm. Vis. i. 3. 2 (a similar form (xeO^fiepivos in class. Gk.) 'daily 7 
(from KaO' fifxepav = class. Ka6r)fjL€pios), ra^tvos ' speedy ' (from ra^a, 
Taxews) 2 P. 1. 14, 2. 1, Herm. Sim. viii. 9. 4. 


1. A distinction is drawn in Greek between true composition 
(orvv0£<r«.s), in which the first of the component parts, if subject to 
inflection, is represented by the stem alone without inflection, and 
improper composition (Trapctfteo-is), i.e. the mere coalescing of words 
originally separate, without further adaptation than is required for 
euphony. To the class of parathetic compounds belong all com- 
pounds of verbs with prepositions, together with some substantival 
forms such as Atoo-Kopoc from Atos Kopoi, and many adverbs, in the 
formation of which the later language showed itself as prolific as 
it did in the production of compound verbs. A third category 
is formed by the derivatives of (true or improper) compounds 
(irapacrvvOeTa), such as irnr or pofaiv, -ta from t7r7TOT/o6</>os, AtocrKopiov 
from Acoo-KopoL. 

2. To enumerate the new (parathetic) compounds formed from 
verb and preposition, together with the verbal substantives and 
verbal adjectives belonging to them, does not come within the 
province of the study of grammar. 2 We may also have more than 
one preposition combined in a word, as in the classical language ; 
special mention may be made of SiaTrapaTpLfiai 1 Tim. 6. 5 'perpetual 
disputations' (7rapaTpi/3rj = ' dispute ' Polyb.). Adverbs formed by 
composition or cohesion (incorrectly used as prepositions) are coined 
more freely by the later than by the classical language (Lob. Phryn. 
45 ff.) ; as a rule they are composed of preposition and adverb, 
as vTrepdvo) E. 1. 21 etc. (hrdw, viroKaTO) belong to the earlier period), 

1 In the Hellenistic poets the quantity of the t, which in other words of this 
class is short, is used indifferently as long or short ; cod. B writes -lvos, not -clvos. 

2 Winer, five essays 'de verborum cum praep. compositorum in N.T. usu/ 
Leips. 1834-43; A. Rieder 'Verbs (and other words) compounded with more 
than one prep, in the New and Old Test./ Progr. Gumbinnen, 1876. 


66 WORD-FORMATION. [§ 28. 2-4. 

€Kira\ai 2 P. 2. 3, 3. 5 (!/< 7raA.ato{> in Attic according to Phrynichus); 
also from prepos. and adj. as kKirepicro-ov (beside eKTrepiorcrm ? as 
^BCD read in Mc. 14. 31 : the word would naturally be forced into 
an adverbial form), by accumulation virepeKirepicrcrov (-ws), E. 3. 20, 
1 Th. 3. 10, 5. 13, cp. (-5s) Clem. Cor. 1. 20.ii (§ 4, 1 note), also 
vTrepTrepicrcrm Mc. 7. 37 (v.l. virepeKir.), virepXiav 2 C. 11. 5, 12. 11, 
vrrepdyav Clem. Cor. i. 56. 2; vTrepeKGLva 2 C. 10. 16 is another new 
form (prep, and pron. : hrtKtiva is old). 

3. True compounds are in a few cases fundamentally substantives, 
formed in such a way that in front of a substantive, which keeps 
its ordinary form, there is placed another substantive (or adject.) 
more nearly defining or restricting its meaning {e.g. lion-head, Greek 
XeovroKe^akrj an architectural term) ; so in N.T. ^vpo^oiviorcra or 
-cKta-ora § 27, 4 (Ai/3v</>otVtK€s Polyb.): evpaKvXmv a hybrid word from 
efipos and aquilo (cp. evpovoros 'north east'); ipevdoTrpcKfirJTrjs, -8d8eX<pos, 
-oWoo-toAos, -8o8i8ao-Ka\os, (\pev86pbaprvs appears in Attic) ; <rap86vv£ 
(A crap8i6w^) Ap. 21. 20 from ardp8ios and ow£, ibid. xp vcr ^ i ^ ^ 
(but xP V(r ° 7r P a(J ' 0S m ^ ne same verse is an adjective formed from 
irpdcrov i leak/ sc. Xfflos) ; xp €0< £ a ^ T7 ?s from x/°* os ano ^ o^etXer-qs, but 
words of this kind (cp. lirTrrjXdrrjs, i7nro8i(DKTr)s) belong rather to 
compounds of subst. and verbal stem, vide infra 5 ; on the other 
hand otKoSeo-Tror^s (cp. Phryn. 373 who condemns the word: deriva- 
tive oiKoSecnroreLv) does really consist of olkos and oWttot^s. — The 
subst. is defined by a particle in o-wxTpartcoT^s (class.), o-vpTrpzo-fivTzpos, 
orvyKXrjpovojuLos : by a verbal stem in dpx^p^vs (but the older form is 
upY^^oecos, i.e. 6 dp\oiy t&v tepefy), apxcreKrcov (which is likewise 
strictly to be explained as 6 dpyu>v t&v t€kt6Vo>i/), dpxireXwvrjs L. 19. 2, 
dpx^TTolpbrjv 1 P. 5. 4, dpxdyyeXos (but in a/^iawaycoyos, apx^rpLKXivos 
it is clear that the first component still continues to govern the 
second). 1 

4. There are a great number of adjectival forms composed of 
adjectives (adv., prep., numeral) and substantive (adj.), which express 
the combined notion of both ideas, such as the peculiar 8evT6p6irpo)rov 
<rdf3f3oLTov L. 6. 1 (from two numeral adjectives), with var, lect. and 
variously explained, see Tisch. ad loc. and W.-Grimm ; an example of 
the ordinary type (particle and subst.) is dveXeos Ja. 2. 13 (class. 
dvrjXerjs, due to to e'Xeos, § 9, 3), SO <ri<X7}poTpdx'r)Xos (LXX.) A. 7. 51, 
8tyvx<>s Ja. 1. 8, 4. 8 (Hermas^ass.), erepoyXojcro-os (Polyb.), 8io-ropos 
and /jLov6(f)daXfios already found in classical Gk. ; IvdyyeXos = Ivos rots 
dyyeXots, like Homeric lo-odeos; especially with a preposition in the 
first place, in which case the formation of the adj. in -10s (aKpoywi/tatos 
is from -a-tos) is preferred : irapaOaXdo-o-ios (old), eiridavdrios 1 C. 
4. 9 = €7rl davdrco crwaA^/x/j-ei/os (also in Dionys. Halic), eiriyeios and 
€7rovpdvcos (old), Karax@dvLOS (also old); ivuTrtov (neuter of ivcL>7rtos) 
likewise takes this formation. From these words again neuter 
substantives are formed. A peculiar compound of elements which 
are coordinate and simply added together, is wxOrjpiepov (late) 2 C. 11. 

1 There are also correspondingly formed adjectives, thus in Hernias TrepiiriKpos 
6 very bitter ' Sim. vi. 2. 5, diroKevos ' somewhat empty ' Mand. xii. 5. 2. 

§ 28. 4-5.] BY COMPOSITION. 67 

25, 'a period of a night and a day/ Kiihner i. 3 ii. 318 ; note moreover 
to 8(o8eK.d<j)vXov A. 26. 7 = at ScodeKd <fivXac (§ 44, 1) ; wo7roc)toj/ 'foot- 
Stool/ v7ro\r)VLov (Xrjvos) the receptacle or vat excavated beneath the 
winepress, dvdyaiov (§§ 3, 7; 6, 4); further aKpoOlviov H. 7. 4 (old), 
/xeo-ovvKTtoT/ (Hellenistic, Lob. Phryn. 53; § 6, 2), rjfitcjpiov 'half an hour' 
Ap. 8. 1 (07 fiLwpov AP, cp. fjfii8paxpov,rifAL7r68Lov etc.; Kiihner i. 3 ii. 323); 
7rpoo-d/3/3aTov, a f]8vocrfjLov a plant (garden mint). In the femin. we have 
?7 KaWuXaios and its opposite dypikXaios (for which, according to 
Moeris, Attic has kotivos) E. 11. 17, 24, not dypuXata, although dypio- 
in the later language is also directly compounded with the substantive 
(supra 3), as in dypioKoXoKvvdr] ; also aKpofSvorrca, a distorted form of 
aKpoirocrOta or -lov (the old word) from ttoo-Otj. Then from adjectives 
of this kind there was a further creation of abstract substantives, such 
as orKXrjpoKap8ta 'hardness of heart' (lxx.) related to o-KXr}pot<dp8io<$ 
(lxx.), and therefore for -Kap8c-ta, cp. 8nrXoi<ap8ia Barn. 20. 1, and 
of verbs (cp. 5), amongst which may be specially noticed 6p0o7ro8€?v 
(opOorrovs is old) G. 2. 14 (nowhere else), and lyKaKtlv (the word 
€KKaK€iv is a wrong reading, occurring also in Herm. Mand. ix. 8) 
'to be slack in anything' Polyb. 4, 19. 10, formed directly from Iv 
and kolkos, although no word ey^a/cos ever existed; Ivoyri^dOai A. 2. 
T4 (lxx.) is also certainly formed directly from kv and ^ra, cp. 
ivo-repvL^ecrOaL Clem. Cor. ii. 1, evo-rrjdifav Athanasius. 

5. The greater number of compounds, originally adjectival, are 
formed of substantive (adject., pronoun) or particle and verbal stem; 
from these adjectives there are then formed parasynthetic Abstract 
substantives and verbs. The most ordinary form is : adj. -os, 
abstract subst. -tot, verb -ew, like t7nroTp6<pos, i7r7roTpo<f)ia, t7r7roTpo<£ea>. 
So in the N.T. we have dyadoiroios 1 P. 2. 14, dyadoiroua 4. 19 
(dya0o7roi7]cns Herm. Mand. viii. 10, Sim. V. 3. 4), dyaOoiroLttv 2. 15 
(beside dyaOoepyeiv 1 Tim. 6. 18, dyaOovpyetv with V.l. dyaOoiroieiv 
A. 14. 17), KaXoiroieiv 2 Th. 3. 13, KaKoiroios (and KaKovpyos, both old), 
KaKOTroieiv (old), elprjv otto 16s -ety, poarypiro teiv only in N.T. (Acts 7. 
41) of the image of the golden calf, where the adjectival stem only 
exists, and only needed to exist, in idea, lo-xvpoiroidv (and -ttolt^ls) 
Hermas, Vis. i. 3. 2 etc. With other verbal stems there are : 
kolkovxcw an old form (from e'xw: kolkovxos nowhere), 7rXr]po<f)opelv -ia 
(first 1 in N.T.: -<j>6pos nowhere), Xoyopax^v -la (late, other writers 
also have -/*ax os )> XiOofioXeiv ' to stone J together with XiBd^eiv (the 
old word was Xeveiv), Xarofxeiv, krepo^vyelv 2 C. 6. 14 (erepogvyos 
lxx.), dvOpw-iroKTovos, dv6p(j)7rdpe(TKos (apecr/cw), of uncertain meaning 
8egLoXdf3os Acts 23. 23 (an infantry corps), according to a probably 
certain conjecture KevepL/SaTeveiv = -elv Col. 2. 18 (KevcpfSdr-qs has to 
be imagined : the word is formed like enfiareveiv) etc. "Where the 
verbal stem has an active sense the adjectives are paroxytone or oxy- 
tone (according to the quantity of the paenultima), whereas in the 
case of a passive stem the accent is thrown back on to the first part 
of the word (irpuroTOKos 'firstborn/ whence 7r/)a>TOTOAaa, cp. evayykXiov, 

1 [ir\r} po<f>opdo 6 'at occurs in lxx. Ecclesiastes 8. 11. Tr.] 
a b c v. App. p. 309. 

6S WORD-FORMATION [§ 28. 5-6. 

H. 1 2. 1 6). But for words of passive meaning the form of the verbal 
adj. in -tos is preferred to that in -o<$ ; thus in N.T. 7raTpoirapd8oTo<s 
1 P. 1. 18, <rr}T6/3p(DTos Ja. 5. 2, At^dcrrpcuTos (Sophocles) Jo. 19. 3, 
7roTajjLocf)6pr}Tos (-(fiopeiv) Ap. 12. 15, 1 €l8o)X66vtov (like tepodvrov) ; 
just as in active words --n/s (the noun of the agent) may take 
the place of -os, xP €0< i >€L ^ Tr i^ supra 3, KapSioyvcoo-rrjs Acts 1. 24, 
15. 8 Herm. Mand. iv. 3. 4 (nowhere else), 7rpoo-(i)7roXrjfjL7rrrjs 10. 34 
(-Tetv, -7]pb\j/ia). From StSacr/ceiv the compounds are formed with 
termination -SiSao-KaAos : vo/xoSiSao-KaAos, KaAoSiSao-KaAos Tit. 2. 3 
(like xopoSiSacrK. in older Greek), eTepoSioWKaAetv'? ( = erepa 8i8d<TK€Lv1 
OY = €TepoLs SiSao-KaAois xPW^ ai ^) 1 Tim. 1. 3, 6. 3;" from <j>vXd<rar<i> 
with -<f>vXag (Hellenistic words): SearpocfavXag A. 16. 23 (ya(o<pvXaKtov 
Mc. 12. 41 etc. LXX., a TrapacrvvOerov from ya£o</>v\ag) ; from verbs 
in -aw, -ecu with termin. -97s (1st decl.): 7rarpoX<oas (§ 6, 2) aAoaV, 
<f>peva7rdrq<$ 2 dirarav (whence <j>pevairaTav), 7rop(f>vpoTT(JjX7]s 7rwAetv, with 
fem. -ttwAis A. 16. 14; SO also dpvevoKOLTrjs (/coiTa^ea-^at, koityj) 1 C. 
60 9, 1 Tim. 1. 10, elStaXoXdrpris (Xarpeveiv), whence elSioXoXarpeiv 
Hernias, elSoyXoXarpia N.T. (a more correct form than -eta like 
Xarpeia ; B however, except in 1 C. 10. 14, has -AaT^eta = -*a), and 
from dpx^tv we have words in -dpx^ beside those in -apxos, see § 9, 2. 
In 6cj>9aXfjLo8ovXla E. 6. 6, Col. 3. 22 (B reads with ei, like SovXeta 
which is formed from SovXevu) the underlying word is 6cf>0aXp68ovXo$ 
(which occurs in Const. Apost.), where the formation is dependent 
on 8ovXos. Occasionally -rjs, 4s also appears as a termination : 
elXiKpLvrjs (Kpivo)), subst. -tveta (old), rr)Xavyrjs Mc. 8. 25 (-cos ; V.l. 
8-qXavyQs &* al.), an old poetical word, but also in lxx. : the sense 
has become weakened to ' clear/ so also in Herm. Sim. vi. 5. 1 ; 
yovv7reTTjS (ttlttto), Eurip.), ~rdv (Polyb.), vovvexrjs from vovv and 
e'xco (Polyb.), kpo7rp€7r^s (Att.). 'AXeKropocfxovia 'cock-crowing' 
(vulgar word, Lob. Phryn. 229 = 17 wpa fyum 6 dX. c/xovei) is peculiar, 
there being no conceivable adjective from which it can be derived. 
In yXoxro-oKOfLov 'a case' 3 Jo. 12. 3, 13. 29 the verb kojjlciv, ko/u(W 
is concealed; the Atticists require in place of this vulgar form the 
longer yAwTTOKo/xetov Phryn. Lob. 98 (cp. x € P Vi P^ 0V * a hand-basin'). 
6. In the older language it frequently happens that in compound 
words of this kind the verb is given the first place (fapeoiKos, 8^1- 
dvfios), in the later language this does not often occur ; on compounds 
in dpx^- vide supra 3: IdeXoOpr^a-Kia (-eta B, cp. 5) Col. 2. 23 based on 
eOeXodprjo-Kos (from 6prj<rKos) which is not found, cp. Z6eXo8i8do-KaXos 
Hernias, e#€AoSovA(e)ta Plato, WeXexOpo? Demosth., eOeXoKaKeiv Hdt., 
(WeXo- expressing spontaneity) : <£tAo#eos, faXdyados and <f>iXavTo<$ 
(Aristot.), (<£iAo7rpa>Tos late language, and) <f>iXoTrpo)Tevoiv 3 Jo. 9 (no 

1 Hesychius also has the phrase iroTa[Ao<f>6pr}Tov iroLeiv, s.v. airbepaev. 

2 I.e. one who deceives his own mind = * conceited' ; the word also occurs on 
a papyrus of the 2nd cent. B.C. (in rhetorical and artificial prose, Grenfell 'An 
Alexandrian erotic fragment,' Oxf. 1896, p. 3). 

3 Strictly a case for the mouthpiece of a flute (y\QTTa). 

a v. App. p. 309. 

§ 28. 6-7.] BY COMPOSITION. 6g 

forms with /xmto- appear in N.T.). — The words compounded with cer- 
tain pronouns and particles deserve a special mention : avroKardi<piTos 
Tit. 3. ii (avTOfjLaros and avOaiperos are old); words with d- privative 
for the most part formed in -tos, e.g. in N.T. dyeveaXoyrjros, dSidxpiTos, 
dSidXenrTOS, 1 (dSvvaros, -etv are old), aKardyvaicrTOSj aKaraKaXvirros, 
aKaraKpiTos, aKardXvTOS, dKard7rav(rTos 9 (aKaraoTaTOS is old, -acrta 
Polyb.), dva7ro\6yr]TOS 9 dfieravorjTOS, (avo^Tos old), dve^epevvrjros, ave£- 
ixvlao-ros etc., not however exclusively in a passive sense (e.g. those 
from diroXoyticrOai, (juerajvoetv) : so also airTcucrTOS Jude 24 (old) is 
active. 2 The opposite to a- is €i/- (e.g. evrtpios — ev rtfifj opposed to 
artfjios) : Jpre/nTo/zos is opposed to aTrepiTfjiYjTos in Barn. 9. 6 C and 
= kv TrepirofjLYJ of kG: Paul has dvofxos - evvopios 1 C. 9. 2i, a § 36, 11. — 
With ev we have: evdpecrros (already in Xenoph.), evfxerdSoTos 'ready 
to impart' 1 Tim. 6. 18, einr pcaSeKTos, evTrcplo-Taros H. 12. 1 (nowhere 
else) probably = 07 paSim 7T€puo-Tafievrj ' easily surrounding and 
thereby hindering ' a person ; with 6W- : Svcrfido-raKTos, SvcreppLrj- 
vevros, SvavorjTos. 'A(v)- (and 8vo--) can also be compounded with 
ordinary adjectives (in classical Gk. dvayvos, Moray vos), but in the 
case of ev-n-dpeSpos 1 C. 7. 35 we should rather refer the word to 
-irapeSpeveiv than to irdpe8pos ; a compound of adverb and verb is 
quite inadmissible, therefore evSoKttv (Hellenistic) must be derived 
from an imaginary evSonos (Se^o/zai), certainly not from SoKetv (aorist 

£v8oK^Gra)j similarly the old word KapaSoxeiv (N.T. d7TOKapaSoKia) is 

derived through an imaginary Kapa8oKos from ndpa and heyo^ai 
(cp. SoKcrco). 3 EvdyyeXos (class.) is from ev and dyyeXXew • whence 
€vayykXiov (as early as Homer) = reward for good news, thanks for a 
good message, cp. TrpmroroKia supra 5 ; it is only late writers who 
employ it for the good news itself; tvayyeXifco-Oai Ho bring good 
news' is also found in Attic Greek. — Upco-^dyiov Jo. 21. 5, which 
according to Moeris is Hellenistic for Attic oxpov 'something eaten 
with bread/ comes from irpos and ^ayeiv ; Trpoo-^Xvros however (lxx.) 
is connected with irpoo-'tpxto- 6 at (eTr-qkvs, l7T7)XvT7)s are old).— A special 
formation is that in -ao-ta, -co-ta, -to-ia, -oo-ia, -ixrta, allied to -oris, and 
not to be confused with abstract nouns from adjectives in -tos 
(aKarao-Taa-ia), since the former has the active sense of the verbal 
substantive: opKcofioo-ia 'an oath/ b opoOeo-la A. 17. 26 'a setting of 
bounds' (unless with Hesychius rd opoOkaia should be read, cp. rd 
opia; yvjULvdcriov, crvfJb7r6(riov) y SiKaiOKpto-ia 'righteous judgment' P. 2. 5* 
alfjbar€K)(V(T la H. 9. 22, also TraXiyyevtvla (ylvecrdai) Tit. 3. 5 ; in com- 
position with a preposition this formation appears in the older 
language, e.g. diroa-raxria (TTpoo-Tao-ia is as early as Attic ; also from a 
simple verb ovofiaxria). 

7. Of compound adverbs, which were not originally derived from 
adjectives, there are not many instances in the N.T. In -el there 
are TrajuLirXyOel L. 23. 18, wavoLKec A. 16. 34, in the cultivated lan- 
guage of Luke, although these particular instances are not Attic; 

1 Found already in an Attic inscription of the 1st cent. B.C. 'Ed>. dpyaioX. 
1893, 49 ff., 1. 30. 

2 But aireipao-Tos Ja. 1. 13 is passive, cf. § 36, 11. 

3 Cp. § 6, 7 7rai>5oK€us. a b c v. App. p. 309. 

JO PROPER NAMES. [§ 28. 7-8. § 29. 

cp. Kiihner i. 3 ii. 303 (l is probably an incorrect spelling, eXXrjvia-rC 
and the like have I). e O/xo0u/>taSoT/ is frequent in the Acts (also occur- 
ring in E. 1 5. 6), a classical word. (For adverbs in -Sov see Kiihner 
ibid. 307 f.) 

8. As is already apparent from the preceding instances, the em- 
ployment of compound words in the N.T. is fairly large, and is not 
absent even from the simplest style, although the more elevated style 
naturally has a larger number of them : for the 8nr\d (as Aristotle 
terms the compounds) serve from the earliest times as an embellish- 
ment to the speech. In the short letter to Titus the following 
striking instances occur (verbal compounds and others are neglected) : 
d8oKifjLos, aKap7ros, dKardyvajo-ros, a/za^o?, aVey/cA^TOs, dvorjTOS, dvofua, 
dvvTTOTOLKTOS, avax^eA^s, direiOrjs, acrwTta, d^Oopta, dxf/evSrjs \ avOdSrjs, 
avTOKaraKpiTos}, alcrxpOKepSrjs; evapecrros; yereaAoyta; lepoTrpeirrjS', KaAo- 
diddo-KaXos \ fiaraioXoyos ; otKOvp(y)6s, oiKovopios ; 7raAiyyevea-ta; ireiO- ; cfytXdyaOos, cj>tXav8pos, (fiiXavOpayiria, <£iAo£ei/os, <ptX6r€KV0S ; 
<f)peva7rdTr}s. — With regard to the manner of the composition, it is 
further to be noticed that, at least in the case of words compounded 
with numerals, the numeral undergoes no elision as it does in Attic, 
but remains intact, in accordance with the effort after a clearer 
isolation of the words — a tendency which has likewise diminished 
the number of cases of elision between separate words (§ 5, 1, cp. 3, 12). 
Thus T€Tpadpx?]s, "X& v Tisch. in Acts 13. 1 according to K*, L. 3. 1 R*C 
etc. (Tisch. on L. loc. cit.), recrcrepaKoi/TaeT^s A. 7. 23, 13. 18, eKarovra- 
errjs R. 4. 1 9 (which is an old form in dialects, but this is due to 
Feros Kiihner i. 3 ii. 332 ; Att. -tovttjs from -roerrjs) ; with apxuepeis 
B in Mt. 26. 14 cp. dpxuarpos MSS. of Origen's Homilies, p. 289, 
Klostermann, LTnroiarpos Pap. Ox. i. p. 155; dyaOoepyeiv 1 Tim. 6. 18, 
dA.\oTpLO€7rL(TKoiros 1 P. 4. 15 KLP, but KB -Tpieir- ; cp. LXX. ypap- 
fiar oetcr ay (oyevs (Deut. 31. 28), fJLaKporjfJLepevetv, apx^oivoxoos, later 
ofxo-ovcnos and the like. 


In the proper names of the N.T. the only grammatical point 
which calls for attention is the class of (hypocoristic) abbreviated 
names. These abbreviated names have always existed in Greek, 
and present a great diversity in their formation, see Bechtel-Fick, 
Griech. Personennamen 26 ff. : -ts, -tas, -etas, -eas (-rjs), -vs, -iX(X)os, 
-u(A)Aos, -o)v, ~lo)v etc. ; the Hellenistic language, on the other hand, 
as it meets us in the N.T., has hardly any other form of the abbrevi- 
ated name than that in -as, which is employed not only when the 
full name contains an a, as in 7 AvTL7ras Ap. 2. 1 3 from 'AvriTrarpos, but 
also when there is no such support for it, and the second half of a 
name containing two stems is completely set aside. These short 
names were in some cases given at birth, as when a Mantitheus called 
his son Mantias, a Nieeratus Nicias, a Demoteles Demon, but in others 
the person originally had the full name, but was frequently called 
by the shorter name, as Menodorus the admiral of Sextus Pompeius 
is spoken of by the historians sometimes by his full name, sometimes 

§29.] PROPER NAMES. ji 

as Menas (W.-Sekm. § 16, 9). 1 An instance of this in the KT. is 
StAoiKivos, as he is always called in St. Paul (also IP. 5. 12), and 2tAas 
A. 15. 22 etc.: also no doubt 'AnoXXuvios A. 18. 24 D and AttoAAcos 
in St. Paul (AttcAAtJs « in Acts, see § 6, 2), A/wrAt'aTos E. 16. 8 with 
v.l. A/^rAtas; but 'E7ra</>/>as Col. 1. 7, 4. 12 (of Colossae) Philem. 23 
and 'E7ra<£pd8tTos Ph. 2. 25, 4. 18 (of Philippi) cannot be one and the 
same person, although undoubtedly the one name is an abbreviation 
of the other. The remaining abbreviations in -as-, in many cases of 
which the original name is not distinctly recognisable, are : 'Apre/ias 
(ApTc/xtSwpos, Varro de lingua Lat. viii. 21), 'Ep/xas ( e Ep/*oSa>pos and 
the like), Z^vas (Z^voSwpos, see Bekk. Anecd. 857), Nu/x<£as (N-u/x^oS.), 
'OXv/uLiras ('OkvfJLTTLoScopos), ArjfJLas (ArjfjbrjTpLOS ?), 2r€</>avas (2r^avr}- 
(fiopos'l or a development of Sre^ai/os, found in Attic Greek?), 2 
Hapfxevas (ILappbivoiv), 3 ILarpo/Sas (IlaTpo/^ios), Aovkols (Aovklos ; cp. 
§ 47, 10). 4 In -rjs there are 'AttcWtjs E. 16. 10 (vide supra), and 
'RppLYJs ibid. 14 (which can hardly be merely identical with the name 
of the god, although at a later period this kind of appellation is also 
found); 5 in -cos there is only AttoAAcos, vide supra. The name 
Ai/8peas, which has early attestation, is of a genuine old Greek form. 

1 See also Crusius, 1ST. Jahrb. fiir Philol. 1891, p. 385 ff. 

2 Bechtel-Fick, op. cit. 253 1, regard 2r^0az>os itself as an abbreviation of 
#i\o-crTe0aj>os or of ^Ere<pavo-K\7Js. 

3 Ibid. 205 (cp. HapfjLevL87)s, -tV/cos, -fay, -fxevis etc.). 

4 W. Schulze, Graeca Latina (Gtg. 1901), 12. In 'Avdpbvucov koX 'lovviav 
R. 16. 7 is commonly found a man's name 'lovvias {=Jtmianusl) ; some of the 
ancient commentators (see Tisch.) took them to be a married couple like 
Aquila and Priscilla. 

5 Ibid. 304 ff. 



1. It has already been noticed (in § 2, 1) that it is in the syntax, 
i.e. in the method of employing and combining the several word- 
forms and ' form-words ' current in the language, that the principal 
grammatical difference between the classical and the N.T. language 
undoubtedly lies, just as it is here too that there is the greatest 
difference between the individual writers of the N.T. It is also on 
the syntactical side that the language itself has shown the greatest 
development, and moreover it is here that the antithesis between 
the artificial writer and the plain narrator of facts or the letter- 
writer — as also that between the man who has received a pure 
Greek education and the man whose education has been wholly 
or preponderantly Hebrew — is most clearly marked. Hence the 
difference in culture between the individual N.T. writers must make 
itself felt in their syntax, from the author of the Apocalypse at one 
extreme to Paul, Luke, and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
at the other. 

2. The two principal kinds of words are the noun and the verb. 
The simplest sentence is formed by the combination of these two, 
where the noun (6Vo/xa) represents the subject, i.e. the fundamental 
idea, and the verb (prjpa) represents the predicate, i.e. some further 
statement concerning the subject. If however the predicate is 
complex, the noun must very soon be called into requisition for 
this office as well, and will serve sometimes as the principal part of 
the predicate, sometimes as the complement of the verb. In the 
former case, where one noun serves the purpose of specifying and 
defining another noun, the verb is in many cases a mere 'form- 
word' necessary for the statement of this relation, though like 
every verb it still presents the two inflections denoting tense and 
mood. It is therefore only natural that, at least in the case of 
the commonest tense, the present, and the commonest mood, the 
indicative, the language should omit the verbal ' form-word ' ' to be J 
as readily intelligible. On the question of the omission or non- 
omission of the auxiliary verb different languages are divided. In 



Hebrew the omission is the rule, in Greek it is allowable from the 
earliest times and occurs also in the N.T., whereas modern Greek 
has given up this liberty and always inserts the auxiliary verb. 

3. Omission of the auxiliary verb. By far the most frequent 
instance of omission, as in the classical language, is that of the 
commonest form of the pres. indie, of the auxiliary verb, namely 
the 3rd pers. sing. eo-riv. Still this omission never grew into a 
fixed usage of the language, except in the case of a few stereotyped 
phrases. Such are: MjXov on (class.) 1 C. 15. 27, (1 Tim. 6. 7 p), 
also with reverse order of words on ..., SrjXov G. 3. 11; n kiiol 
(rjfjLtv) /cat o-oC Mt. 8. 29, Mc. 1. 24, 5. 7, L. 4. 34, 8. 28, Jo. 2. 4 1 

( = Hebr. T$\ ^""tT/O Judges 11. 12 etc.; there are, however, 
similar classical phrases); 2 n irpbs o-e (fjp<ds) Mt. 27. 4, Jo. 21. 22 f., 
quid hoc ad te (similar classical phrases), 3 cp. n yap liol 1 C. 5. 12, 
and many other instances, infra § 50, 7 ; ri (/xot) to ocf>eXos 1 C. 15. 
32, Ja. 2. 14, 16 (dXXd ri Tovroiv ocjyeXos avrots Demosth. 9. 69); 
In fxiKpov, Kat ... Jo. 14. 19, 16. 16 f, 19 (en /x. ocrov 6o~ov H. 10. 37 
O.T., but in lxx. Is. 26. 20 without this ellipse) ; /xa/<aptos dvrjp 
os- Ja. 1. 12, E. 4. 8 O.T. (Hebr. tD^ri n l^), so also fmKapiot ol 
wtuxol etc. Mt. 5. 3 etc., in this exclamation where the 3rd pers. 
is used the auxiliary verb is never expressed (it is different with 
the 2nd pers., Mt. 5. 11, 16. 17, and in a statement of fact, 11. 6 [om. 
icrnv X ab Chrys.]==L. 7. 23): cp. the classical fxaKaptos y' avr)p e'xwv 
k.t. A. Aristoph. Ran. 1482. The classes of sentence where this omission 
is particularly frequent are exclamations (A. 19. 28, 34 juLeydXrj rj 
"Apre/JLis 'EcjfrecrtW, R. 11. 33 <o? dve^epevvrjra rot Kpi/xara avrov) and 
questions (L. 4. 36 rk o Xoyos ovros; A. 10. 21 tls rj air La 6Y fjv - ; 
R. 3. I Tt to 7repLcro-bv rov 'lovSatov, rj Tts ^ dxj^eXeua rrjs TrepiroLifjs ;) : 
but it is also found not infrequently in statements of fact, Mc. 14. 
36 rravra Sward crot, H. 9. 16 f. ottov &La0rjKr} y Odvarov dvdyKi) cfrepecrOai, 
rov SuaOefievoV StadrjKT] yap eirl veKpols /3e/3ata, 1 C. 10. 13 and 2 C. 
1. 18 TTio-rbs 6 Oeos, 1 Th. 5. 24 7rto-Tbs 6 i<aX(ov vpds (with kcrriv in 
2 Th. 3. 3, but the verb is wanting in FG al.), irio-rbs 6 Xoyos 1 Tim. 
1. 15, 3. 1, 4. 9, 2 Tim. 2. n, Tit. 3. 8. Another class of expression 
where (as in classical Greek) the omission is common consists of 
impersonal phrases; dvdyKrj H. 9. 16 (vide supra), 9. 23, R. 13. 5 *? a 
(with eo-Tt Mt. 18. 7 but om. BL), & P a R. 13. n, i£6v A. 2. 29, 2 C. 
12. 4, d&vvarov H. 6. 4, 18, 10. 4, 11. 6, el Swarov (as we say ' if 
possible') Mt. 24. 24, Mc. 13. 22, R. 12. 18 (G. 4. 15 vide infra), 
but with eo-nv (Mt. 26. 39?), Mc. 14. 35. KecfrdXatov Se H. 8. 1 is 
classical. The verb may also be omitted even when it is not a 

1 Nonnus in his metrical paraphrase presents a very noteworthy various 
reading : ri i/xoi, yfocu, ye aoi avry ; = ri ifjiol 7) aoi ytivca. ; ( * What is this to me or 
to you ?' cp. the following words oviroj rjKei i] &pa fiov). Cp. ri de aoi ravra Aristoph. 
Lysistr. 514. 

2 Klihner, Gr. ii. 364 (Herodot. 5. 33 aoi de /cat rotiroun rots Tpr/y/xaat ri ean; 
Demosth. 29. 36 ri r§ voficp Kal rrj ^aadvoj ;). 

3 Ov8ev irpbs rov Atbvvaov ; Dem. 18. 21 otidfr tan ftfiirov irpbs i/xi, 
«v. App. p. 309. 


mere copula: 1 C. 15. 40 /cat o-w/xara k-irovpavia (sc. ccttiv 'there are') 
koI cr. eiriyeua. Other forms of et/xfc are omitted : da-iv with fiaKapioi 
vide supra, E,. 11. 16 d 81 rj dirapxr} ay La, Kal to (f>vpapa y Kal 
d r) pi£a ay La, koI ol fcXaSot, cp. P>. 4. 14, 1 C. 16. 9, H. 2. II etc. 
Eljjti, Icrpiv, el are not often omitted, and the omission is even more 
rare when eyw, rj^eis, or on; are not inserted; Mc. 12. 26 = A. 7. 32 
O.T. !yo> 6 0eos 'A/3paa/x /c.r.A. (but lxx. has elpLL here, though it is 
absent from the original Hebrew, and so Mt. 22. 32; also some MSS. 
in Mc. and Acts), Jo. 14. 11, 2 C. 10. 7 ; without a pronoun 2 C. 
11. 6 €6 8e Kal tSiarn?s t$ Aoyo> (sc. et/xt which D*E introduce, St. 
Paul has been speaking of himself just before in verse 5), 1 Ap. 15. 4 
otl jaovos oa-Los (sc. d), Ph. 3. 1 5. ^Hv 3rd sing, is always omitted in 
the phrase § (fj) ovofia L. 1. 26 f., 2. 25, 8. 41, 24. 13 (D ovo/xart), 
18 (oVo/xan «B al.), A. 13. 6 (D is different), or oS to 6Vo//,a Mc. 
14. 32 (a> C), or in the still more Hebraic (cp. 1 Kings 1. 1 etc.) 
Kal t6 ovofxa avrrjs (avrov) L. 1. 5, 27; parenthetically ovofia avroj 
(Demosth. 32. 11 'AptarTocficov ovo/ma avTa)) Jo. 1. 6 (with rjv inserted 
K*D*), 3. 1 (&* Svofiart, as Luke has elsewhere in his Gospel and 
almost always in the Acts [class.], cp. §§ 33, 2 ; 38, 2 ; Xenophon 
Mem. 3, 11. 1 writes y ovofia rjv) ; in these phrases it makes no 
difference whether rp? is to be supplied (with persons) or ka-riv (with 
place-names).* "Eo-Tat (or icrri) is omitted in 1 P. 4. 17, 1 C. 15. 21, 
cp. 22. *Ht only occasionally in St. Paul (2 0. 8. 11, 13). EL'tj is 
commonly omitted in formulas expressing a wish, such as iXem <roi 
(sc. 6 Oebs etrj) Mt. 16. 22, dprjvrj v/jllv etc., as in classical Greek 
(JXaos Soph. O.C. 1477 ; cp. lxx. 2 Kings 20. 20) and in Hebrew 

(Sp D^ptp) ; in doxologies such as evXoyrjTos 6 9e6<s (2 C. 1. 3 etc.) 

= Hebr. Q^rfcS l ?p ta S (Ps. 66. 20 etc.) we may supply either 'is* 

(Cp. R. 1. 25 OS eOTTLV €V\. K.T.X., 2 C. 11. 3 1 O WV €v\oy., 1 P. 4. II 

<S eo-Tiv [ea-TLv om. A] f) So£a, Buttmann p. 120) or 'be' (Winer, who 
compares 1 Kings 10. 9 yevoiTo evX,. y Job 1. 21 drf evA,.); the former, 
however, appears to be the sense in which the N.T. writers under- 
stood the phrase. "E(ttg> is omitted in pySev <rol Kal tw 8ikcli<p 1/cetVw 
Mt. 27. 19 (cp. for the formula what is said above), in x^P ts T< ? ^ €< ? 
(class.) 2 C. 8. 16, 9. 15, (R. 6. 17)*; see further H. 13. 4, 5 rtjuos 6 
ydjjLos k.t.X., R. 12. 19 ff, Col. 4. 6. On the omission of etvai and 
wv cp. §§ 34, 5 ; 73, 4 and 5 ; 74, 2. The present or imperf. (aor. 
and fut.) of etvai (yivecrQai, irapelvai, irapayiv.) may, after Hebrew 
precedent, be omitted after tSou = FlStt, which can stand by itself 
for the verbal predicate, though it may also be introduced in 
addition to the predicate, Mt. 3. 17 (17. 5) koI 18ov (fiwrj (sc. iyevero) 
€k rcou ovpavojv Xiyovcra (but the same phrase occurs without l8ov 
A. 10. 15), L. 5. 18 Kal l8ov dv8pes (fcepovres k.t.X. (sc. rjvav, Traprjcrav 
as in 13. i), cp. 5. 12, A. 13. 11 Kal vvv l8ov \elp Kvpiov eirl ere, 8. 

36. On the more extended use of the ellipse of the verb vide 
infra § 81. 

1 On R. 1. 15 oijTcas to /car' i/xe irp60v/jLos (so more correctly than -ov) sc. et>£ 
(6<j>€i\€T7)s eljxi precedes), see § 42, 2. ab v. App. p. 309. 


4. Absence of the subject. On the absence of the subject, where 
it is not contained in the verb or in the context, the following 
remarks may be made for the KT. usage. The so-called impersonal 
verbs expressing meteorological phenomena are almost entirely want- 
ing. Byoex« (the vulgar word for vet, which nowhere appears) is 
personal in Mt. 5. 45, sc. 6 6e6s (lxx. Gen. 2. 5, but 6 Oehs vet is also 
a classical phrase)," impersonal in Ja. 5. 17 (Ap. 11. 6 ha p) 
verhs fipexVi i n tne Vulgate simply pluat). Bpovra, 1 ao-rpdinei etc. 
are nowhere found (07 do-rpairrj do-rpd7rrovcra L. 17. 24; the verb is 
used = ' to shine ' as in class. Greek ibid. 24. 4, cp. irepiao-rpdirTeiv A. 9. 
3, 22. 6 ' to shine round about J ). 6 ' Equally uncommon in the N.T. are 
the classical expressions in which the agent is readily supplied from the 
verb in the person to whom some particular task belongs (e.g. €Kripv£e 
sc. 6 K7jpv£): o-aXTriorei 1 C. 15. 52 ' the trumpet shall sound' (Winer 
compares the German ' es lautet '; in any case 6 o~aXiriyKTris cannot 
be understood, the most that can be supplied is rj o~dXTuy£). Peculiar 
phrases are rpirrjv ravTYjV rjfxepav dyei ('it is, J as dya) rj/xepav is used) 
L. 24. 21, and owi-e^ei 'it is enough' Mc. 14. 41 (Anacreontea 28. 31°; 
but D has air. to reXos, the matter has received its completion). 
Somewhat more frequent is the impersonal passive, like Latin itur 
1 one goes/ but this usage was never developed to any great extent 
in Greek : Mt. 7. 2 ev w p>£Tp(x) perpetre pLerp^Orjo-erai vjjliv ( = Mc. 4. 24, 
L. 6. 38), L. 6. 38 SiSore koll Sodrjo-erai vpuv (cp. Mt. 7. 7, Mc. 4. 25), 
where the writer passes at once to the 3rd pers. plur. act. with 
equivalent meaning pktpov ... Stoo-ovcnv : 1 P. 4. 6 veKpols ev^yyeXto-Or], 
H. 10. TO, 1 C. 15. 42 f. cnreiperai Iv ^60 pa, ey el per at iv dcfrOapcria 
k.t.A., Herm. Mand. iii. 3 eTrio-revdiq tw Adyo) p.ov. But eppedr) on 
Mt. 5. 21 does not come under this head, since the question 'What 
was said V finds its answer in the ori clause ; in the same way irpk-Kei, 
7rpeirov ecrrl, Set, e^ecrri, l^ov (iari), eyevero, dvefir] enl rr]V KapSiav 
avrov (A. 7. 23) 2 followed by an infinitive are not instances of the 
loss of the subject. The use of the 3rd pers. plur. act. without a 
subject is occasioned by the indefiniteness of the agent, but the sub- 
ject may also, if one likes, be denoted by ol dvQpumoi, as in L. 6. 31 
kuOws OeXere Iva TroLtocrtv vfuv ol dvdp. = ' that one should do unto you.' 
The instances of omission in this case are not very many : Mt. 7. 1 6 

orvXXeyovo-LV, Mc. 10. 13 irpocrk^epov, L. 17. 23 epovcrcv, 12. 20, 

Jo. 15. 6, 20. 2, A. 3. 2, Ap. 12. 6 (1 C. 10. 20).— In the formulas of 
citation such as Xeyet 2 C. 6. 2, G. 3. 16 etc., <prjorlv 1 C. 6. 16, H. 8. 5, 
dprfKe H. 4. 4, 6 Oeos is to be understood ('He says ') ; in 2 C 10. 10 
tfyqo-iv (tfDE etc., ? 'one says') appears to be a wrong reading for 
<j>ao-lv (B), unless perhaps a ns has dropped out (but cp. Clem. Horn, 
xi. 9 ad init.). 

1 BpovTTj yeyovev take its place in Jo. 12. 29. 

2 Used impersonally in Herm. Mand. iv. 1, pr) avaftaiveTw aov iirl tt]v KapUav 
Trepl yvvaiKos aKKorpias (Hebr. zh-by Thy). a & c v# App. p. 310. 

76 AGREEMENT. [§ 31. 1-2. 


1. The arrangement (a-vvra^is) of the different parts of the 
sentence, primarily of subject and predicate, involves a mutual 
assimilation, inasmuch as the individual nouns and verbs are not 
represented by a single abstract radical form, but only appear in 
certain definite and distinctive forms, and these forms cannot differ 
from each other in different parts of the sentence, where they refer 
to the same thing or person. In addition to its application in the 
case of subject and predicate, this law of agreement holds good also 
for nouns which are bound up together into a smaller whole within 
the sentence, one noun more nearly defining the other (the attribute, 
apposition). The individual forms [or inflections] to which nouns and 
verbs are subject express the following ideas : (a) one of the three 
genders, since there are nouns which possess different forms for these 
genders (adjectives), or which at least draw a distinction between 
the masculine and feminine genders (designations of persons such 
as /3acn\.evs - /5acrt Atcrcra) ; (b) one of the two numbers (the dual no 
longer existing in the N.T.) — this applies equally to nouns and 
verbs; (c) one of the five cases (nouns) ; (d) one of the three persons 
in the case of the verb, while the noun is for the 1st and 2nd persons 
represented by a certain class of words — the pronouns. Any com- 
bination of words where the agreement in any of these respects is 
not adhered to is strictly proscribed as a solecism, except in some 
definite cases where the language admits of the violation of the 
law of agreement. 

2. Want of agreement in gender. — Instances of an adjectival 
predicate in neuter sing, agreeing with a feminine subject are : 
Mt. 6. 34 dpKCTov rfj rjfJ^epa rj KaKca avryjs, 2 C. 2. 6 Uavov tw roiovno 
rj hriTi\xi(X avryj, A. 12. 3 D IScov on apccrrov icrriv rots 'IovSollois rj 
eirtx^p-qcrts avrov. The third instance is, however, uncertain, since 
the text in D may be due to corrupt conflation of different readings. 
In the other two instances it appears better to regard dpKerov and 
Ikolvov as imitations of the Latin satis (cp. L. 22. $& ISov ixdyaipai 
<SSe 8vo — tKavov e<jriv, Herm. Vis. iii. 9. 3 to dpKerov rrjs rpo<prjs satis 
cibi; on the other hand the predicate is dpKeros in 1 P. 4. 3) than 
to compare the classical usage in general propositions such as ovk 
dyaObv TroXvKoipavir) ; in instances like the last the word e thing ' 
must be supplied, and a comparison is drawn between the general 
idea contained in the subject and other things of a different charac- 
ter. KaXbv to aAas Mc. 9. 50, L. 14. 34 'salt is a good thing' 
would also in classical Greek be expressed by something like 
XprjvijjLov ol (xAes; but there is an absence in the N.T. of analogous 
instances of this use with a masculine or feminine subject, just as 
the fuller classical forms of this neuter predicate — /xaTatoV n, xp^k-o- 
<rocf)6v — are also wanting. Still we find n ' something (special),' 
ovdev 'nothing' i.e. 'nothing worth' used as neuter predicates to a 
niasc. or fern, subject : G-. 6. 3 d Sokcl Tts etval n /x^Sei/ &v (as in 

§ 3 i. 2.] AGREEMENT. jj 

class. Greek; beside this we have ewai tis A. 5. 36, cp. 8. 9 = c a 
great man'). Further instances are ri 6 Uerpos eyeveTo (tl etrj ravra), 
see § 50, 7; 1 0. 11. 5 (the woman who is unveiled) ev eo-Ti Kal to avrb 
rrj egvpYjfJLevr), Mt. 6. 25 = L. 12. 23 rj ^v\r) irXelov evTi rrjs Tpo<f>r)s ; 
in general assertions of this kind /xta Kal i) avrrj, irXeiw would be 
impossible. But in particular statements the pronoun is brought 
into agreement with the noun: E. 11. 15™'$ i) Trpoo-XrjxfsLs el /x?) — 
(German would use the neuter 'was'), E. 1. 18 tls eo-Tiv r) eXwh r?Js 
/cA^o-eoos olvtov, 1 C. 3. 17 (6 vabs tov Oeov) otrivks eo~Te vpieh (but in 
1 C. 6. 11 ravrd [sc. KXeirrac k.t.A.] Ttves 7jre = Tocovroi i which would 
not have been sufficiently clear, while ovtol would have been 
impossible; Herm. Sim. ix. 5. 3 ri ko-nv [is the meaning of] r) 
oLKoSojjLri). If the pronoun is the subject, in this case also there is 
agreement, which is contrary to German usage : Mt. 22. 38 ovtt) 

icrrlv r) fxeydXrj ZvtoXtj, Ph. 1. 28 r)ri<$ (i.e. resistance, to avTiKeicrOai) 
ZcttIv olvtols evSeu^is a7rcoAetas, cp. E. 3. 13, A. 16. 12 QiXittttovs tjtls 
io-rl ttoXls. But in assimilation of this sort Latin goes a step further 
than Greek: see 1 P. 2. 19 f. tovto \^P l ^ el-viro^epei ns — aAA' 
el - v7rofjLev€LT€, tovto x<*/hs irapcL Oey, where the Greek regards the 
two ideas of 'grace' and 'endurance' as too distinct to admit of 
being merged into one, while the Latin translation has haec est gratia 
(Buttmann, p. 112). In interpretations by means of a relative 
sentence (as in 1 C. 3. 17 ohtves quoted above) the prevalent form 
elsewhere for the relative is the neut. sing, (which in that passage 
would be intolerable : 6 eo-rcv vfiets), even though neither the 
explanatory word nor the word explained has this gender : Mt. 27. 
33 tottov Xeyofxevov ToAy., 6 (09 A al.) eo~Tiv Kpavlov tottos (the 
repetition of Xeyopevos either before or after toVos is rightly omitted 
by K ca D), Mc. 15. 22 To Ay. tottov, o ecrTiv jxeOeppLTjvevoixevov Kp. r., 
3. 17 Bavr]peye£ (700), o ecrTiv viol /SpovTrjs, Jo. 1. 42 1 etc.; Mc. 12. 42 

A€7TTa SvO, 6 ko-TLV Ko8pdvT7]S \ Col. 3. 1 4 Tr)v dydTTY)V, 6 (v.l. 6s, t/tis) 

ecrTiv crvvSecr/uos tt)s TeXeioTrjTos' 2 (Bam. 15. 8 apxV v ••■> ° ecrTiv dXXov 
KocrfJLOv dpxif)v); cp. Mc. 15. 1 6 Trjs avXrjs, o ecrTiv TrpaiT(jjpiov ; E. 6. 17 
ttjv {jLOLxaipav - , o io~Tiv p^fxa Oeov ; in the Apocalypse alone is there 
assimilation of the relative to the subject or predic: 4. 5 XapLirdSes, 
a (v.l. at') elo-iv t<x TTvevfjiaTa 5. 6, 8. This phrase o ecrTL has become 
as much a stereotyped formula as the equivalent tovt ecm (rovTeo-Ti) 
in Mt. 27. 46 r] XI — tovt eWi Gee fxov k.t.A., H. 2. 14 toi> to Kpd,TO$ 
e^ovTa tov OavaTov, TOVTecrTi tov 8id/3oXov, 7. 5, 9. 11 etc. But all 
these instances represent not so much a classical as a Hellenistic 
usage. (Tt eo-Ti TauTa is common to N.T. and classical Greek § 50, 
7). On TrpuTrj irdvTOiv Mc. 12. 28 see § 36, 12; on want of agreement 
in the constructio ad sensum vide infra 4 ; on the construction 

1 Jo. 19. 17 rbv XeYopevov Kpaviov tottov, 6 (al. 6s) XfyeTcii 'E/3/)cu<rrt r<>\7o0a is 
badly corrupted; we should read with LX, vulg. al. Kp. r., 'E/3p. de V. 

2 Since this is a case not of interpretation but description, os would be more 
correct, cp. Col. 3. 5 ttjv irXeove^iav, 77ns icrrlv eidwXoXarpta, where eVri 'that 
is to say ' would be more in place than in verse 14, cp. the v.l. in E. 5. 5. The 
reading o (BDEFG) for os in Col. 2. 10 is entirely wrong ; in 2. 176' (BFG) for 
& is harsh. 

7 3 AGREEMENT. [§ 31. 2-3. 

where the subject of the sentence is composed of several words, or 
in the case of an attribute to several nouns vide infra 5. 

3. Want of agreement in number ; neuter plurals with singular 
verb. Probably there is no more striking peculiarity in the whole 
of Greek syntax than the rule that where the subject is a neuter 
plural the verb still remains in the singular. This rule, which in 
Attic is never broken, is however not without exceptions in Homer 
a,nd in the Hellenistic language, and modern Greek has gone back 
completely and exclusively to the use of the plural verb in this 
instance as in others. In the N.T. (as in the lxx.) there is great 
fluctuation, and very often this fluctuation extends to the readings 
of the MSS. in individual passages : while in the Shepherd of 
Hernias the plural is found in the majority of cases. Of neuter 
words which denote persons : reKva is used with plural verb in 
Mt. 10. 21 (sing. BA)=Mc. 13. 12 (sing. B), but with sing, verb in 
1 Jo. 3. 10, E. 9. 8 : IBvq with plur. verb Mt. 6. 32 (sing. EG al.), 
12. 21 O.T., 25. 32 (sing. AE al.), L. 12. 30 (sing. AD al.), Acts 4. 
25 O.T., 11. 1 (sing. D*), 13. 48, R 2. 14 (sing. D C E), 15. 27, 1 C. 
10. 20 ? (om. ™ Wvq BDEF al., sing. KL), G. 3. 8 O.T., 2 Tim. 4. 
17 (sing. KL), Ap. 11. 18 (sing. »*), 15. 4, 18. 3, 23, 21. 24, Clem. 
Cor. i. 59. 4 (with sing, verb all MSS. in R. 9. 30, E. 4. 17); but 
with Satfjiovia the sing, verb preponderates, L. 4. 41 (plur. «C), 8. 
2, 30 (plur. CF, also D with another reading, cp. 31 f.), 35 (plur. « c ), 
38 (in verse 33 dcrfjXOov has overwhelming evidence, -ev SU), 10. 17 : 
the plur. is found in Ja. 2. 19; irvevpiara uses both constructions, 
a plur. verb in Mc. 1. 27, 3. 11 (v.l. sing.), 5. 13 (sing. B), A 8. 7 % 
Ap. 4. 5 ? 16. 14 (v.l. with sing, partially introduced), a sing, verb 
in L. 8. 2 KaroiKec, 10. 20 (v.l. Sat/xovta), 1 C. 14. 32 (v.l. irvevpLa). 
Other neuter words besides these appear with plural verb : Mt. 
60 28 ra Kpiva ttcos av^dvovcriv (but with sing, verb in the corre- 
sponding words in L. 12. 37), Jo. 19. 31 has first Iva /z?? ^cvy ra 
crM/mara, followed by lvol Kareayajcrtv avrutv ra (TKeXi], Jo. 10. 8 ovk 
rjKovcrav (-crev L) avrcov ra irp6(3ara. In the verses preceding the 
last passage quoted a sing, verb is used with 7rp6/3ara, ibid. 3 
aKovei, 4 aKoXovOet, with the additional words ort ol'Saonv rrjv <jyo)vrjv 
avrov (because o!8e would have been ambiguous) and further on 
another plural in verse 5; in the subsequent verses, 10 has export 
where Trpoftara must be regarded as the subject, in 12 ecrnv is read 
by kABLX, elo-Lv by T>Y al., and so on with constant interchange 
up till 16 (in 27 and the following verse there are conflicting 
readings). On the whole, the singular verb certainly is more 
frequently used with words which have not a personal meaning 
(the singular is not excluded even by the insertion of a numeral, 
iav yevTjrai — l/carbv Trpofiara Mt. 18. 12), and is uniformly employed 
With abstract words (exceptions are rot prjfjLaTa ravra with ecfrdvrjorav 
L. 24. 11, and perhaps zpya with Swavrat [v.l. -arai] 1 Tim. 5. 25) 
and with pronouns such as ravra and a (Ap. 1. 19 a dviv kcu a 
/xeAAet yevko-Baiy Clem. Cor. i. 42. 2 eykvovro afufcortpa, cp. 27. 6 7rdvra; 
so Jo. 17. 7 v.l.). In 1 C. 10. 1 1 there are two readings : ravra Se rvwiKSts 
<rvve{3aw€v and — rviroi crvvefiaivov, cp. verse 6 ravra Se rvirot rjixCiv 

§ 3i. 3-5.] A GREEMENT. 79 

iyevrjOrjcrav, the verb taking its number from the noun which forms 
the predicate, as it does also in classical Greek as well as in Latin 
(Kuhner-Gerth ii. 3 75 f.). 1 

4. The so-called constructio ad sensum is very widespread in Greek 
from early times, though without being subject to any rules ; the 
same construction appears in the N.T. It affects both number and 
gender. The instances mainly consist of the collective words 
which embrace in a singular noun the idea of a plurality of 
persons : masculine words like 6'x^os, Aads, feminines like o-rpand, 
oiKta, neuters like irXrjdos, cnrepfia (with plur. verb in Herm. Vis. 
ii. 2. 2). Instances of this construction, where a masculine plural 
conforming to the sense only appears in a clause appended to the 
main clause, do not give serious offence even in English : e.g. 
1 C 10. 15 oidare ttjv oiKiav ^re<pava, ori — era^av eavrovs (era^ev 
eavrrjv is unnatural), Jo. 6. 2 rjKoXovOet oyXos ttoXvs, otl edetopovv. 
The following are rather harsher constructions : L. 2. 13 TrXf)6o$ 
urparias ovpavcov ( = dyyeXtov), alvovvrcov rbv deov koX XtyovTtov, 
A. 21. 35 rjKoXovOet to irXrjOos rov Xaov, Kpdfavres Atpe avrov (Kpd£ov 
DHLP) cp. 3. 11. And this want of agreement in number is not 
excluded even where the singular and plural words are directly 
connected: A. 6. 11 noXvs re o^Xos raw tepecov virrJKovov (-cv AE) rrj 
7rto"T€fc, 25. 24 dwav to 7rXrj6os tcov j IovSoli<dv kveTvypv (BH -ev) julol — , 
/3o(ovt€s k.t.X., Mt. 21. 8 6 7rAeto-Tos oyyVos ecrrpocrav, Jo. 7. 49 o o^Xos 
ovtos 6 pur) ytvcocTKWV tof vopLOV €7rdpaTOL tio-iv. The following also 
are closely allied to b\Xos etc. : rd eOvrj i the heathen, 7 E. 4. 17 f. 
rd Wvr\ Trepiirarei — , eo-Koroy/JLevot k.t.X. (1 C. 12. 2 is not an instance 
of this), at eKKXrjcriai Gr. 1. 22 f. (which IS followed by povov Se aKOV- 
ovres rfo-av), and names of places : L. 10. 13 T-upw koX ^ZlSojvl 
- KaOrjfjLevoi, though here the other reading -vat (DEG- al.), since the 
towns are regarded as wholes (as in Mt. 11. 21 ff), appears prefer- 
able. Cp. § 48, 5 (use of the personal pron. avrov and the relative). 

5. If the subject consists of several coordinate words connected by 
kcU, the common predicate must, according to German feeling, stand 
in the plural in conformity with the sense, and of course if one of the 
subject words is eyw, this plural predicate must be the plural of the 

1st person : L. 2. 48 6 irarrjp crov Kay co oSwcofievoi kfjjTovfikv ere, 

Jo. 10. 30, 1 C. 9. 6. An additional modifying word, referring to 
the subject, as ooWto/xevot in the passage quoted, will, if declinable, 
likewise fall into the plural, and into the masculine plural in a case 
where the subject consists of a combination of masc. and fern, words 
(Joseph and Mary in that passage). This is always the case if the 
predicate follows the subject ; on the other hand, if it precedes the 
subject, it is rather the custom for the verb to stand in the singular, 
and to correspond in form to the subject immediately following it : 
again, if the verb is interposed between the different subjects, it is 
made to correspond to the subject which has preceded it, and can 
only take the number of that subject. Instances of the singular 

1 On the stereotyped use of the sing, idoti, tde, dye see § 33, 2 note. 

g AGREEMENT [§ 31. 5-6. 

verb occupying the first place : A. 11. 24 a-ioOfjo-rj o-v /cat 6 olkos <rov, 
where the first word is the main subject ' thou together with thy 
whole house,' similarly Jo. 2. 2 eKXrjdrj 8e /cat 'Irjcrovs /cat ol paOrjral 
avrov, and, so far as the participle at the head of the sentence is 
concerned, A. 5. 29 aVo/cpt&ls 8e Uerpos /cat ol diroo~roXoi etirav (cp. 
verse 21) ; but the singular verb is also used where the subjects are 
placed on an equality: Jo. 18. 15 rjKoXovOec 8e tw 'I. 2i)ug>v ILerpos /cat 
aXXos paOrjTrjs (cp. 20. 3, A. 26. 30 ; so without exception where the 
subject words are not persons, as in Mt. 5. 18 6 ovpavbs /cat r) yrj); 
L. 2. 33 rjv 8e 6 7raTr)p avrov /cat rj fjLfjrrjp Oavfid^ovres, Mt. 17. 3 oif^Orj 
(tfBD : al. -r\o~av) — Mcovcrrjs /cat 'HAtas orvXXaXovvres. From the last 
two instances it follows that where the predicate is divided, that 
part of it which precedes the subject is in the singular, the part 
which follows it is in the plural (so in the passage A. 5. 29 quoted 
above). Ifi the following instances there is a special reason for the 
plural verb : Mc. 10. 35 TrpoorrropevovraL avrw 7 Ia/c(o/3os /cat 'Icodvrjs 01 
vtol Ze/SeSacov (the pair of brothers who from the first were thought 
of together), Jo. 21. 2 rjcrav 6p,ov 2t/*coj/ Uerpos /cat K.r.X. y L. 23. 12 
eyevovro <j>i\oi o re 'Hpaxfys /cat 6 IltAaTOS, A. 5. 24 a>s 8e rjKOVcrav — o 
re crrparrjybs - /cat ol a/^tepets (the plural has already been used 
before of the same persons in verse 21 ; cp. 1. 13, 4. 27). Accord- 
ingly, in default of any reason of this kind, where the readings differ, 
the singular appears to deserve the preference, as in L. 8. 19, 
A. 17. 14"; we even have aKovo-as 8e Bapvdfias /cat IlavAos the reading 
of D in Acts 14. 14, cp. 13. 46 D. Instances of interposition of the 
predicate are L. 8. 2 2 avrbs dve/3r] els ttXolov /cat ol fJiaO. avrov, 
Jo. 4. 36 etc. — For adjectives and participles qualifying several 
words cp. L. 10. 1 els iracrav ttoXlv /cat roirov, 1 Th. 5. 23, on the 
Other hand 8wpa /cat Ovcriai firj 8vvd}xevai H. 9. 9 (ibid. 3. 6 /3e/3atai/ is 
an interpolation from verse 14). — The singular verb is regularly 
used, if the two subjects instead of being connected by /cat are 
separated by r) : Mt. 5. 18 tarra ev r) /xta Kepala ov firj irapeXOy, 12. 25, 
18. 8, E. 5. 5 (especially if the verb precedes as in 1 C. 14. 24); 
Gr. 1. 8 eav rj/Jbets rj dyyeXos e£ ovpavov evayyeXlfryrai (it would be 
impossible to include the two subjects in -£o>/xe#a). An exception is 
Ja. 2. 15 eav d8eX<f)bs rj dSeXcjyr) yvfivol vwapyuo-iv (occasioned by the 
adjective, the singular of which, yvpuvos or yiyzi/ry, would have been 

6. Solecisms (in the Apocalypse). In distinction from all other 
New Testament writings, and in particular from those of the Apostle 
St. John, the Apocalypse exhibits a multitude of the most remark- 
able solecisms, which depend in the main upon the neglect of the 
laws of agreement. Thus we have in 1. 5 aVo T^o-ou Xp., 6 p.dp«n>$ 6 
ituttos, 6 7rpcoTOTOKOs ro)V veKpwv /cat o iLpyjov rQ>v f3ao-tXe(ov rrjs yrjs, tg> 
aya7jwri r) pas K.r.X. (the datives on account of avrw in verse 6 accord- 
ing to Winer), 11. 4 ofrrot elcnv at 8vo JAatat /cat at 8vo Xvyyiai at 
ev&TTiov rov Kvpiov rrjs yrjs Io-tcotcs (K*ABC ; lorrwo-at N CC P), 12. 5 /cat 
ereKev vlbv ap<rev ( AP ; dppeva i*B, apceva P), os peXXet K.r.X. (the cor- 
rection -eva is no improvement; a better alteration would be to strike 
OUt i>toy), 6 14. 19 efSaXev els rr)v Xrjvbv rov Ovpov rov Oeov rbv piyav (rhv 

a b v. App. p. 310. 

§ 31. 6.] AGREEMENT. 8 1 

fjieydXrjv tf). Cp. 2. 20 (nom. in apposition with ace), 3. 12 (nom. 
for gen.), 6. 1 (the same, as a v.l.), 7. 4 (nom. for ace), 8. 9 (for gen.), 
9. 14 (for dat.), 14. 12 (for gen., which K reads), 20. 2 (for ace): 7. 9 
(6'xAos . . . eo-TWTes . . . TrepifitfiXriixtvovs ; the ace. is dependent on eTSov 
which stands at the beginning of the verse, the nom. on kcu ISov 
which follows eTSov, Winer), 5. nf. (Xeyovres following <£cdvt)v dyyeXayv 
and rjv 6 dpidpibs avrwv fjivpiddes k.t.A.; similar anacolutha with Xeycov 
or -ovres in 4. 1, 11. 15, 14. 7: and with v.l. 11. 1, 19. 6), 21. 9 with 
v.l. It has even been fixed as a rule for this writer that an apposi- 
tional phrase following a noun in any case stands in the nominative, 
although scribes have shown a strong inclination to correct these sole- 
cisms. 1 The isolated cases of anacoluthon of this kind which appear in 
other writings of the N.T. should be regarded either as excusable or as 
due to a corrupt text. Jo. 1. 14 o Xoyos crdpg eyevero — kou e@eacrdpL€0a 
rrjv 86£av avrov — TrXrjpTjs (-pr) D) x^P LT0 ^ KaL dXrjOetas. In this passage 
the word in question is one which to a remarkably great extent, both 
in the N.T. and also in papyrus documents, appears as indeclinable : 
thus A. 6. 5 avSpa TrXrjprjs (-prj BC 2 ) Tricrreoy^ 3 rrXiopets (-pr]S AEHP) 
7rv€vpLaros, 19. 28 yevo/xevoi irX-qpeis (-pY)S AEL) dvpiov, Mc. 8. 19 
ko<[>lvov<s 7rXrjp€LS (~p^ AFGrM) KXacrpdnov, 2 Jo. 8 fiicrOuV 7rXrjprf 
(-py]s L) ; the only passages where it is declined in all mss. (no 
genitive following it) are Mt. 14. 20, 15. 37 ( eis), Mc. 4. 28 a v.l. 
(-pv)j 6. 43 a v.l. (-p€is) ; cp. Papyr. Berol. no. 13. 8 direp direcrx^^v 
7rXrjprj<Sj 81. 27 as 7rapaSwo-co 7rXrjpr)s, 270. 9, 373. 13, 21; Grenfell- 
Hunt, Pap. ii., p. 107 Sid to 7rXrjp7][s ajvrbv aVeo-x^xei/at, 118 (perhaps 
also 117, where rrXr^p-q is given at the end of a line). 2 — In Philipp. 2. 1 
€6 Tts TrapaK Averts — , €ltl 7rapa/JLv6iov—, €t ns Kotvtovia — , elns cnrXdyxya 
kcu oLKTipfioi, d rt ('if it avails ought/ cp. § 31, 2) ought to be, as it 
seems, written throughout. — Ja. 3. 8 rrjv -yAaWav ovSels Svvarai 
Sa/mdcrat, aKardcrx^Tov kolkov, |A€<tttJ lov (Tisch. puts a colon after 6\x/>t., 
making the following clause independent, sc. Icttlv). — L. 24. 47 
KrjpvxOrjvac [xerdvoiav — dp^dfievoi (-€vo)V D correctly, -tvov AC 3 FH al.) 
and A. 10. 37 otSare to yevojuevov prjfxa KaO f oXtjs tt)s 'IovSollols, 
dpgdfievos aVb rrjs TaXiX. (dpg. yap AD, which is no improvement; 
-evov correctly LP; but the whole clause dp%. d. t. I\ is perhaps 
taken from L. 23. 5). For other instances cp. § 81. 

1 Nestle, Philol. Sacra 7, Einfiihrung in das Griech. N.T. 90 f. Akin to this is 
what may be called the indeclinable use of Xeyw or \eyovres in the lxx. = ~htib. : 
Gen. 15. 1, 22. 30, 38. 13, 45. 16 etc. , Winer. On the practice of many translators 
of putting words in apposition with any of the oblique cases in the nominative, 
see Nestle, Philol. Sacra 7. (Nestle also conjectures in Ap. 1. 4 irvevfxdrtav rd 
evdoiriov rod dpovov in place of the readings rwc, &, a eanv or eiviv, just as in 5. 13 
fc* alone has preserved the true reading rb instead of 6 or ianv. In 2. 13 
he reads iv reus ijixipais 'AvrLira 6 fidprvs fxov ... 8s.) Nestle, Einfuhrung in das 
gr. N.T. 90. 

2ii n\r)pr)s is also used indeclinably in the lxx., e.g. Num. 7. 13 F, 19 N, 
20 BN*, Job 21. 24 all mss., Sir. 19. 23 B*. Cp. the phrase ' eine Arbeit voller 
Fehler.' " (E. Nestle.) a v. App. p. 310. 

82 GENDER AND NUMBER. [§32. 1-3. 



1. The neuter of the adjective or participle is sometimes used with 
reference to persons, not only in phrases like to yewufievov L. 1. 35 
'that which is to be born,' cp. to tckvov, but also as in Jo. 17. 2 
— Trdo"t]S crapKOS, iva irdv o SeStoKas aww, 8<dct€l avrols (%XV -^)> where 

men are first comprised under the collective name crdp£, then under 
the neuter ndv, and finally (in avrois) the usual mode of designation 
appears. Cp. Jo. 6. 37 (a similar instance), 1 Jo. 5. 4 (wdv to; 7ra? 
6 has been previously used in verse 1); further H. 7. 7 to cXolttov 
vtto tov /cpetTTovos evXoyeiTat, for 6 kXdrroiv or ol ZXaTTOves, in order 
to represent the thought in a more abstract and so in a more general 
form. A similar collective use of the neut. sing, appears in classical 
Greek (Kuhner-Gerth ii. 3 14). Elsewhere the neut. plur. is used: 
1 C. 1. 27 f. toc fjioypa tov Koo-pcov — tol do-Oevrj t. ac. — t<x la-yi)pd, where 
the sing, would have been wrong because of the idea of unity which 
it would imply — since the paopol etc. do not form a definite section — 
and moreover with the masculine the emphasis would not have lain 
so strongly upon the abstract quality of foolishness etc. Cp. further 
G. 3. 2 2 Tot irdvTa, which is not so strong as tovs irdvTa^ which might 
also have stood, irdvTa Jo. 12. 32 k*E>. (In classical Greek to. 
favyovTOL Xenoph. Anab. 7, 3. n ap. Winer ; TrdvTa tol (rvfi/Se^Laa-fieva 
Dem. 8. 41.) 

2. The feminine appears to stand in place of the neuter, in 
consequence of a literal rendering from the Hebrew, in the O.T. 
quotation Mt. 21. 42 = Mc. 12. 11 trapd Kvptov iyeveTo aHrr\ /cat Icttiv 
OavjjLao-Trj, from Ps. 118. 23 = Hebr. VfXT 'this.' 

3. The so-called collective use of the masc. sing, (on the neuter 
sing, vide supra 1) is found in R. 3. 1 ri to irepivcrbv tov 'lovSaiov; 
i.e. 'What advantage has the Jew as Jew? 9 (which every individual 
Jew has ipso facto); cp. 2. 17-29, where the individual has already 
been selected as the representative of the community. We have 
just the same use with names of nations and rank, ' the soldier,' ' the 
Jew'; Latin miles, Romanus etc.; in classical Greek it is less common 
(Thucyd. 6. 78 tov *2vpaKoo-iov, tw 'AOrjvaitfj). Other instances are 
Mt. 12. 35 6 dyaObs dvOpioiros, R. 13. 8 to dyaObv epyov, 1 P. 4. 18 
o Slkcuos — 6 acre/^s, R. 14. I tov do~6evovvTa. But in Ja. 2. 6 tov 
7tto)x6v refers to the example of verse 2 : also in 5. 6 a single 
instance is thought of in tov SIkcuov, while 1 C. 6. 5 SiaKpivai dvd 
jiko-ov tov dSeXcfiov avTov is an incorrect expression, possibly requiring 
emendation (since dvd pkvov of course presupposes more persons than 
one), for dvd fxto-ov dvSpbs kolI (dvd fiio-ov) tov d8. a., and is modelled 
on the LXX., Ez. 18. 8 Kpifxa 7roirjO"€i dvd iikcrov dv&pbs /cat aVa, /x. tov 
irXrjcriov avTov. 

§ 32. 4-5.] GENDER AND NUMBER. 83 

4. Of another character is the use of the sing, of objects, which 
belong individually to several persons, where several persons are 
spoken of, as we also say ' they shook their heads ' [die Kopfe] or 
4 they shook their head' [den Kopf], i.e. everyone his own head, 
where the insertion of ' everyone ' would be quite superfluous. In 
Greek, including N.T. Greek, the plural is usual in such cases ; but 
deviations from this are permitted in classical as in N.T. Greek: 
A. 25. 24 tra £vpr)(T(DVTcu tyjv Kt<fia\r)v (Vulg. capita), L. 1. 66 Wevro 
iravres kv rrj Kapftiy (DL rats KapSlats) olvtujv, Mc. 8. 17 7re7rti)p(Dp€vrjV 

€)(€T€ TTjV KOLpStOLV Vp(OV, E. 6. I4 7T€pl{\i)(TapL€VOL Tt]V 6(TCJyVV VpWV, 

Ap. 6. 1 1 iS66rj avroLs crroXr] XevKi) (but icr6rj$ in L. 24. 4 is collective 
'raiment/ as is usual with this word [kq-drjcrecnv ACL al.]). The 
sing, is always used in the Hebraic periphrastic expressions aV6 
irpocrcoirov tcov Trarepdyv A. 7. 45, Kara Trp6<ro)irov Trdvrwv L. 2. 31, Sta 
o-To/xaTos 7rdvTu>v A. 3. 18 (21); also Sid x €l P°s is used with a plural 
word as in A. 2. 23, but here we have also the conceivable use of Stot 
tcov xzipwv with a singular; *k rrjs x- olvtcov Jo. 10. 39. 

5. The plural is used with reference to a single person by a 
generalising mode of expression in Mt. 2. 20 reOvrjKacnv ol ^tovvtzs 
tyjv xpvxqv rov 7ratSwv, namely Herod (verse 19); the plural implies 
the thought, there is nothing more to fear, since with Herod's death 
all are dead who etc." More peculiar is the use of the plural in the 
case of a certain group of substantives. This is partly due to the 
influence of Hebrew; thus aiwves is used in H. 1. 2, 11. 3, 1 Tim. 1. 
17 (?) for 'the world,' in L. 1. 33 and often for 'eternity' (esp. in 

the phrase €ts rovs aliovas rwv alwvojv G. 1. 5 etc.) =tD^^^ : 
ovpavoL = t2^^5, but in most writers this plural is only used of 
heaven in the figurative sense as the seat of God (beside the sing, 
which is used in the same sense), whereas in the literal sense of 
the word the sing, prevails, except where, in accordance with the 
Jewish conception, several heavens are distinguished (E. 4. 10 
V7T€pdvo) TrdvTuiv rcov ovp., cp. 1. 10, Col. 1. 16, 20, H. 1. 10 O.T., 

4. 14, 7. 26, 2 P. 3. 5, 7, 10, 12, 13; also probably at Swdpets t&v 
ovpavMv Mt. 24. 29 = Mc. 13. 25=Lc. 21. 26). Thus we always 
have rj fiacriXeia riov ovpavcov Mt. 3. 2 etc., 6 7rarrjp vptov 6 kv (rots) 
ovp. 5. 16 etc.; similarly in Luke 10. 20 r<x ovopLara vptov kyykypawTai 
kv tois ovp. (to> ovpavco D), 12. 2^ Orjcravpbv kv rots ovp., A. 2. 34, 

7. 56 ; in Paul 2 C. 5. 1, E. 3. 15, 6. 9 (« ovpavy), Ph. 3. 20, Col. 1. 

5, 4. 1 (ovpavio k*ABC), 1 Th. 1. 10; 1 P. 1. 4 (ovpavy «) ; (John 
never has the plural; also in the Apoc. it only occurs in 12. 12); 
in Mt. the passage 24. 31 aV aKpuv ovpavwv ecos a/epwv avruv runs 
counter to the rule given above (Mc. 13. 27 has the sing, here), but 
not 3. 16 f., cp. Mc. 1. 10 f. etSev crxt^opkvovs tovs ovpavovs — , /cat 
cjxovr) e/c 7w ovpaviov (L. 3. 21 f. has the sing., but cp. A. 7. 56). 
Further otWtp/W=d^2irp. in Paul, E. 12. 1 etc.; the sing, only occurs 
in Col. 3. 1 2 (plur. K) ; cp. infra 6. The following plurals agree 
with the classical use: aVaroAat, Svcr/mai east and west Mt. 2. 1, 8. 11 
etc., but only in the formula aVb (4W) dVaroAwv, 8vo-/jl<ov, on the other 

a v. App. p. 310. 

8 4 GENDER AND NUMBER— CASES. [§ 32. 5-6. § 33- 

hand we have kv rrj dvaroXrj Mt. 2. 2, 9; goto dvaroXrjs (B-Q>v) is also 
found beside dirh 8vcrfJL(ov Ap. 21. 13, a. aya/roA^s (A' -wi/) ?}/U'ou 7. 2, 
16. 12 (Sva-firj never occurs, as in class. Greek Sixr/mi is practically 
the only form). Always £k 8e%L(ov, e£ dpLo-repcav or evuyvvjuLwv ; kv tols 
degiois Mc. 16. 5, ets ra Se^tot p.€pr| Jo. 21. 6; beside these we have 
kv S€^a a R 8. 34, E. 1. 20 etc., sc. x 66 / 06 ' (classical use is similar). 
Cp. t<x fiepy] 'the region' Mt. 2. 22 etc., kireKetva. beyond A. 7. 43 
(a wrong reading from the lxx. ; it should be kirl rd peprj). To. 
ayta, ra ayta rcoV aytW parts of the temple (or tabernacle) H. 9. 
2 f. are used as well as to dyiov in verse 1 (rd dyia r. dyiuv in lxx. 
1 Kings 8. 6). HvXaL (class.) is only so used in ttvXcll "AtSov Mt. 
16. 18 (lxx. Sap. Sal. 16. 23; class.), elsewhere the sing, is used 
for one gate ; similarly Ovpa for one door (class, often Bvpai), cp. 
at Ovpat 7ra<rcu A. 16. 26, so that Jo. 20. 19 f. OvpQv, and perhaps 
also A. 5. 19, 23, 21. 30 are to be understood of several doors ; the 
plural is used in the expression k^l Ovpats Mt. 24. ^^, Mc. 13. 29, 
cp. Ja. 5. 9 7rpb iw 6vpQ>v figuratively, irpo rrjs dvpas A. 12. 6 
literally (but ibid. 5. 23 -n-po tw OvpCov in a similar connection). 
KoX-ttol (class.) is used in L. 16. 23 kv rols koXttols (to) koXtto) D) 
avrov ('A^paa/x), the sing, in verse 22. (l/xdrta means 'clothes' 
including tfidnov and x ir( *> v ) Du k * s used inaccurately = i/xdVtov in 
Jo. 13. 4, 19. 23, also probably in A. 18. 6). The use of dpyvpia 
for 'pieces of money' Mt. 26. 15 is not usual in classical Greek; 
oi/wta 'wages' L. 3. 14 etc. is Hellenistic. M/xara (in classical 
poets) Ap. 18. 24 B (but kACP read atfia) is blood shed by several 
martyrs 6 ; Jo. 1. 13 ovk J£ alpbdroyv is used of the substance from 
which a man is begotten (Eurip. Ion 693, Winer). The names of 
feasts are as in classical Greek (Aioi/va-ia, Uavadrjvata) in the plural: 
ly/catVta, yevko-La d (rd d^vfxa in Mc. 14. t to 7rd(rxa Kal rd afu/za, but 
D omits Kal rot a£ : strictly it should be afu/xoi sc. dproi : it is an 
abbreviation of rj kopTrj twv d{i;/xo)i/ or at rjfxkpat t. d£, L. 22. 1 etc.) ; 
also ydfioL 'a marriage-feast' Mt. 22. 2, Lc. 12. 36 etc. (classical): 
but the sing, is used in Mt. 22. 8 etc. AiaOrjKcu E. 2. 12, E. 9. 4 
KCK (r) SLaOrjKY) BDE al.) must be a real plural (elsewhere 8ia0r)K7] is 
always used, as also in the lxx.). 

6. The plural of abstract expressions is found in Greek in a 
manner that appears strange to us, not only in poets, but also not 
infrequently in an elevated prose style, being used to indicate the 
individual concrete manifestations of the abstract quality. The New 
Testament occasionally presents a similar usage: Mt. 15. 19 <£6voi, 
jwotxetat, 7ropvetat, KXowaL etc., cp. Mc. 7. 21 f. : 2 C. 12. IO epcs (v.l. 
€p€LS, cp. § 8, 3), (yjXos (v.l. (rjXoi), OvpbOL, kpiOtLcu, KaTaXaXiac, 
xf/idvpurfiOL, <£ixritocre£S, aKarao-racrtaL, cp. G. 5. 20, rds iropveias 

1 C. 7. 2, viroKpLoreis, <j>66vovs, KaTaXaXids 1 P. 2. I cp. 4. 3, Trpocro)- 
iroXTjfjLxp lolls Ja. 2. i, alo-xvvas Jd. 1 3; also OavdroLs 'mortal dangers 7 

2 C. 11. 23 (/avtJ/xcu Herm. Sim. vi. 5. 3). 


1. The nominative as the case of the name (ovo^ao-TLKrj — nomina- 

tivus) appears to stand occasionally, where a proper name is 

introduced, without regard to the construction, in place of the case 

a b c d v. App. p. 310. 


which is strictly required. Thus Jo. 13. 13 <j><dv€lt€ /xe 6 SiSdo-KaXos 
koll Kvptos, but here the nom. has mainly a vocative character, 
vide inf. 4 : Ap. 9. 1 1 6Vo/xa e\ei (6V. e'xet is omitted by the 
Latin Yulgate and may be supplied from the preceding words) 
' AttoXXvcov. Cp. Xenoph. Oecon. 6. 14 tovs exovTas to o-e/jivbv 6Vo/xa 
tovto to kol\6s re K&yaOos (other instances in Lobeck, Phryn. 517. 1). 
But elsewhere the name is regularly assimilated to the case : Mt. 
1. 21, 25 KaXeo-eis to ovofxa avrov 'Itjctovv, Mc. 3. 16 tTreOrjKev ovofxa 
tw 2lfjL(t)vt Htrpov (only A and the Latin versions have Uerpos) : and 
without exception in the phrase oVo/xaTi 'by name' e.g. A. 27. 1 
€K<xTovTdpxy ovopLaTL 'lovXitp: cp. infra 2. It is accordingly incredible 
that the Mount of Olives should be translated by 6 'EAcuwv and 
that this word should be used as indeclinable in L. 19. 29, 21. 37 
opos (ace.) to KaXovfjievov lAatwv, but we must write eAcuwi/ (to 6pos 
twv e\. in L. 19, 37 etc.), and in the single passage where we dis- 
tinctly have the other form, A. 1. 12 (opovs rov KaXovfievov) eXai&vos 
we must correct the text to lAatwv (as also in Joseph. Ant. Jud. 
7, 9. 2), see § 10, 5. 

2. The nominative occasionally stands in a parenthesis inter- 
rupting the construction: thus Jo. 1. 6 kyeveTo dvOp^iros - , Twav^s 
ovo/xa atb-w (rjv is read before 6V. by n*D*), cp. 3. 1 (where K* has 
Nt/cocfy/xos ovofxari ; there is a more detailed expression introduced 
by r\v hi in 18. 10; cp. also Ap. 6. 8, 8. 11, 9. n; a similar classical 
use,,§ 30, 2); for this elsewhere with a more normal adjustment to 
the construction $ 6Vo/xa - (often in Lc, but in Acts only at 13. 6; 
ov to ov. with v.l. w ov. Mc. 14. 32) or oVo/xaTt (Luke, Gospel and 
Acts) is used. The instances in statements of time are more 
striking : L. 9. 28 kykveTo Be fieTa tovs Xoyovs tovtovs, wcrei 07/xepat 
oktco, Kal irapaXa f3(bv k.t.X., Mt. 15. 32 otl rjSrj rj/JLepai (rjfiepas tf) 
Tpeis irpoo-jjievovo-Lv poi." So also we may accordingly interpret A. 
5. 7 eyeveTO Se, o>s w/dwi/ Tpiwv Stao-T^/xa, /cat r) yvvrj k.t.X., and perhaps 
too (as Bengel and Winer) L. 13. 16 rjv eSrjo-ev 6 2aTavas, l8ov SeKa 

Kal OKT(0 €T7]. lb 

3. The double nominative (nom. of the subject and nom. of the 
predicate) is found in the N.T. as in Attic, except that occasionally 
in place of the second nominative els with the accusative is used 
after a Hebrew model (as it is also used instead of the second 
accusative with corresponding active verbs, § 34, 5). This con- 
struction appears with elvai (more precisely with the fut. eo-o/xat, 
which has a certain relation to ytvofiat) and yiveo-dai, but chiefly in 
quotations : ecrovTac els adpKa fxlav Mt. 19. 5 O.T. = Hebr. J, eyevrjOr] 
els Ke<paXrjv ytavias 21. 42 O.T., eo~Tai tol crKoXia els evOeias L. 3. 5 
O.T., 2 C. 6. 18 O.T. ; seldom except in quotations, as in L. 13. 19 
kykveTo els (om. els D) SevSpov, Jo. 16. 20 r) Xvtty) vfiQv els x a P° LV 

1 The use of the nom. with ISov, 'ide (ide 6 dfxvbs rov deov Jo. 1. 29 etc.) can 
only appear irregular, if one recalls the original meaning of the words. 
Already in Attic writers 1806 (with this accent) has become a particle = ecce, 
and I8e at any rate has become stereotyped like dye and <j>epe, so that it is joined 
with a plural word (Mt. 26. 65 etc.; dye ol \eyovres Ja. 4. 13, cp. 5. I). 
a b v. App. p. 310. 


yevrjcreTcu ( = /zeracrryoa^ycreTat, with which the use of els is not 
remarkable), Ap. 8. II (with 16, 19 eyevero els rpca fieprj cp. Siacpeiv 
els : with 1 Th, 3. 5 els Kevbv ykvqrai 6 kottos 77/xco]/ cp. the Attic els 
KepSos tl &pav). The combination Xoyl(eo-6ai (passive) els is also 
not Attic, being taken from lxx. Gen. 15 6 eXoyvcrOri aww els 
SiKcuoo-vvrjv ; in addition to its use in that quotation we have els 
ovSev XoytcrOrjvai A. 19. 27 (the same combination in Is. 40 17), 
rot reKva Xoyi^eTai els o-weppLa R. 9. 8, cp. 2, 26 a (for nothing, for a 
seed; cp. class, ovftev ecvat, to pLrjSev etvat) ; from this use comes the 
phrase e/xot els eXdyjb<n6v earn 1 C. 4. 3. 

4. The language has created a special case for address, namely 
the vocative ; this is limited, it is true, to the singular, and even 
there is not in all cases distinguished in form from the nominative. 
This case appears also in the N.T. (d8eX<j>e L. 6. 42, -n-drep Mt. 6. 9), 
but generally without the accompaniment which it usually has in 
Attic, namely the interjection co. In most cases where this <3 is 
found in the N.T. it expresses emotion: Mt. 15. 28 co (om. D) 
ywat, fieydXr] crov rj -terns {yvvai in L. 22. 57, Jo. 2. 4, 4. 21 etc.), 
17. 17 ( = Mc, 9. 19, L. 9. 41) co yevea awio-ros (on the nom. vide 
infra), L. 24. 25, A. 13. 10 & TrXrjprjs (cp. inf.) k.t.A. (E. 11. 33 w 
jSdOos irXovrov is not an address, but an exclamation, for which 
purpose w [in this case also written co] is likewise used in Attic), 
GL 3. 1, 1 Tim. 6. 20. With a less degree of emotion: co dvOpome 
E. 2. 1, 3, 9, 20, Ja. 2. 20 (dvOpayire without co in L. 12. 14, 22. 58, 
60) ; it is found without any sense of emotion in the Attic manner 
only in the Acts : <3 QeocjytXe 1. 1 (in L. 1. 3 K^pdno-re BeofaXe, as 
the author of the work irepl vxpovs has the address Uoo-rovfjue 
(piXrare ; on the other hand Dionysius of Halicarnassus in the work 
7repl tcov dp\. p^Topuv has co Kpartcrre 'A/x/xate j in any case QeocjuXe 
without either co or Kpdria-re would be much too bald), 18. 14 co 
(dvSpes) 'lovSaioi (Gallio is speaking), 27. 21 co dvSpes (while dvSpes 
dSeXfol, dvSpes 'Adrjvaiot etc. are used even in this book without co, 
and even the simple dvSpes 7. 26, 14. 15 etc., 27. 10, 25), co fiacnXev 
according to the witnesses supporting the j3 text in A. 26. 13 (7). — 
From : the earliest times (the practice is as old as Homer) the 
nominative has a tendency to usurp the place of the vocative. 
In the N.T. this occurs in two instances : on the one hand, with 
adjectives standing without a substantive or with a substantive 
whose vocative is not distinguishable from the nomin. : Mt. 17. 17, 
Mc. 9; 19, L. 9. 41 co yeved dirto-ros (but D in Mc. and Lc. has 
cwrieiTc), A. 13. 10 co irXr)pr]s (with which may be compared co Svarvx^s- 
in Menander) ; defypuv L. 12. 20 (a variant -ov has little support), 
1 C. 15. 36 (ditto); 1 — on the other hand, where the article is 
introduced, which must naturally be followed by the nominative. 
The latter use of the nom. for voc. is also found already in Attic, 
e.g. Al'istoph. Acharn. 242 trpdW els to 7rp6(r0ev oXiyov r\ Kavrj<f>6pos T 

i.e. you (who are) the basket bearer, Kan. 521 o irais (you there, 

1 Even irarrip is read by BD in Jo. 17. 21, and by AB in verses 24, 25^ 
Ovydrrjp AB J D etc. Jo. 12. 15 O.T., L. 8. 48 BKL, Mt. 9. 22 DGL, Mc. 5. 34 BR 

a v. App. p. 310. 

§33-4. §34-1.] NOMINATIVE AND VOCATIVE. 87 

the lad I mean) &KoXov9ei ; in prose a-v 6 7rp€o-/3vTaTos, w avSpes ol 
Trapovres, ol ot/cerat, Hpo^eve koll ol aXXoi ol 7rapovT€<$ (Xen. Anab. i. 
5. 16), and esp. with participles, one half of which do not form a 
vocative at all. 1 And so in the N.T. we have L. 8. 54 fj Trafc 
iyeipov, Mc. 5. 41, 9. 25, L. 12. 32 pjr) cj>o/3ov, to pLLKpbv iroipLViov, 
11. 39 vfjiels ol ^apio-aiot, 2 R. 14. 4 <rv ... 6 Kpivuv, Col. 3. 8 if. at 
yvvaiKes — ol avSpes — ra reKva etc. = vjjl€ls /mev at yvv. — vpLtts Se ol 
avSpes, Ap. 18. 20 ovpave /cat ol ay tot /c.r.A. 3 In all these instances 
we have not so much a simple address as a more definite indication 
of the person addressed. But the N.T. (and the lxx.) have extended 
this usage still further ; in particular (<S) See is not common (only 
in Mt. 27. 46 in a translation ; also rare in lxx.), the phrase 6 6e6$ 
being used instead, L. 18. 11, H. 1. 8 O.T., 10. 7 O.T. etc., Kvpte 6 
Oeos Ap. 15. 3, and so also 6 Trartjp Mt. 11. 26, E. 8. 15, 6 oWttot^s 
Ap. 6. 10, 6 KVptos p.ov kolL 6 Oeos pov Jo. 20. 28 (6 StSacncaAos ko! 
Kvptos 13. 13, vide supra 1); further 6 fiao-iXevs Ap. 15. 3, Mt. 
27. 29 (BD al. /3a(nXev), Mc. 15. 18 (here «BD al. /WtAev), Jo. 19. 3 
(/SaortXev tf), since this /3a<r. twv 'Io^oatW is not a correct title, but 
a special designation, whereas the mode of addressing king Agrippa 
in A. 2G. 7 etc. is and must be fiao-tXev. 


1. The. use of the accusative as the complement of transitive 
verbs, which is the most ordinary function of this case, in the 
N.T. gives occasion only for a few special remarks, since in the 
first place transitives and intransitives are not so sharply distin- 
guished in N.T. Greek as in older Greek, and again other cases 
besides the accusative offer rival claims to be used as the comple- 
ment of the verb. The following verbs occasionally appear as 
transitives. Me'veiv £ to await/ A. 20. 5, 23 (viropikveiv 1 C. 13. 7 etc., 
also in the sense of ' to await the help of God,' Clem. Cor. i. 34. 8, a 
quotation, for which lxx. uses the dat.; -n-epipikvetv A. 1. 4, dvapLevetv 
1 Th. 1. 10). *€V7€iv 'to avoid 7 (opposed to 8lmk€iv 'to strive after' 
anything), 1 C. 6. t8, 1 Tim. 6. 11, 2 Tim. 2. 22 (with Hebraic con- 
struction <f>. ano in the same sense 1 C. 10. 14) ; 'to flee before/ 'to 
escape/ only in H. 11. 34, Zcfrvyov crro /xara /xa^atp^s as in class. 
Greek, elsewhere </>. dirb as in Mt. 3. 7 <f>vyelv oltto ttjs pieXXovcrrjs 
opyrjs (which in class. Greek is only used of places, (jyevyetv aVo tt)s 
IZkvXXtjs Xen. Mem. ii. 6. 31, cp. Herm. Mand. xi. 14 fevyei air 
avrov 'from him') a ; £ikcf)evy€Lv trans, in L. 21. 36 etc.; airo<f>. 2 P. 2. 20 
(ibid 1. 4 with genit. ? see § 36, 9). #vXd<r<r€ar0at 'to shun/ trans, as 
in classical Greek, A. 21. 25 etc., as well as with dirb L. 12. 15 

1 Kriiger, Gramm. § 45, 2. Ktihner,-Gerth ii. 3 46 ff. 

- So also L. 6. 25 otial vfuv, ol £fjLTr€Tr\r}<r/iiepoi, is regular, since ol €jultt. is equi- 
valent to a vocative. 

3 Without the article we have A. 7. 42 O.T. ol/cos 'Io-pa^X = (vfiecs) 6 oIk. 'I. 
(see on the omission of the article § 46, 9). a v. A pp. p. 311. 

88 ACCUSATIVE. [§34.1. 

(Xenoph. CvT. ii. 3. 9), cp. $>v\dcro-eiv eavTov dirb 1 Jo. 5. 2 1. 1 $op€io-0cu 
'to fear,' usually transitive, takes dwo after Hebrew usage in Mt. 10. 
28. 0app€tv is only in trans, (in classical Greek also trans.). 
Oav|j,a.t€tv, usually intrans., is trans, in L. 7. 9 iOav^aa-ev avrov (om. 
avr. D), A. 7. 31 to opajma (om. to op. A). Jd. 1 6 . Al<rxw€<r0<u is 
intrans. (with diro in 1 Jo. 2. 28), but eiraurxw. is transitive, cp. 
evrpeTreoScu infra 2. a 'EX.€€tv (olicrupciv R. 9. 15 O.T.) trans. KXcueiv 
mostly intrans., trans, in Mt. 2. 18 O.T. (lxx. is different), L. 23. 
28 according to D (in the other MSS. it takes hri with accus.). 
Il€v0€iv is trans, only in 2 C. 12. 21 (and in L. 23. 28 according to 
D). Kdirr€<r9<u 'to bewail' is trans, in L. 8. 52 (class.), and takes 
€7ta with ace. in Ap. 1. 7, 18. 9. EvSokciv Ho take pleasure in' is 
trans, only in Mt. 12. 18 O.T. in k*B (al. els, lv), H. 10. 6, 8 O.T. 
(the lxx. here has rjOek-qo-as, elsewhere however it uses ev8. transi- 
tively e.g. Ps. 51. 18). ('Airopcto-Oat rt occurs in A. 25. 20 kABHP, 
CEL insert eis ; nowhere else in the N.T. is the accus. found after 
air. or 8ta7r. [occasionally in classical Greek after (£77-.], which take ev 
or 7rept, both of which constructions occur in Herm. Sim. viii. 3. 1). 
Kcu>xdcr9ai 'to boast,' mainly intrans., is trans, in 2 C. 9. 2, 11. 30 
(with ace. of the thing). B\a<r<|>T]p.€iv is often transitive (a late use, not 
Attic), €ts nva the Attic construction is found in Mc. 3. 29 (om. els 
D), L. 12. io. 2 (YfBpifav is only used transitively.) 'Op.vth>ai is no 
longer used with accusative of that by which one swears, except in 
Ja. 5. 12; elsewhere it takes lv (ets)^Hebr. 21 Mt. 5. 34 etc., or (as 
is found as early as class. Greek) Kara twos H. 6. 13, 16 ; 6 but 
bpKi^eiv nvd (evopK.) still keeps this accus. Mc. 5. 7, A. 19. 13, 1 Th. 
5. 27 (e£opKi£(o [D 6pK.~\ o-e Kara with genit. Mt. 26. 63, Herm. Sim. 
ix. 10. 5)/ @piap.p€V€iv 'to triumph ' is used transitively = 'to lead in 
triumph' in Col. 2. 15, and somewhat differently in 2 C. 2. 14 ('to 
cause to go in triumph as a victor ; ; the use in the first passage may 
be paralleled by Plutarch Comp. Thes. et. Rom. 4). Ma0TjT€V€iv (a 
late word) is intrans., ' to be a disciple,' in Mt. 27. 57 v.L, but the 
passive efMa0r)Tev0rj is read by kCD : trans., ' to make a disciple,' in 
A. 14. 21, Mt. 13. 52 (pass.), 28. 19. 'Efiiropeveo-Gai, a middle verb, is 
intrans. in Ja. 4. 13 : trans, 'to deceive' in 2 P. 2. 3 (so l/x7roAav 
Soph. Ant. 1050)/ 'Iepovpyciv (a late word) to evayyektov (like 
dvo-iav) occurs in R. 15. 16. 3 e 'Yo-reptiv in the sense of 'to be 
wanting ' (without a case in Jo. 2. 3, cp. Dioscor. 5. 86), is trans, in 
Mc. 10. 21 ev o-e vo-repet kBC al. (ctol AD al.), cp. lxx. Ps. 22. 1 (else- 

1 In L. 12. 15 [bpare nal (pvkderoreade dirb) the words kol <f>v\. are wanting in the 
Syriac version, and this same sense of * to beware of ' already belongs to bpdv - 
fiXeTreiv dirb, Mc. 8. 1 5 bpare (om. D, these two verbs cannot stand together) fiXeirere 
dirb, 12. 38 (on the other hand (SXeir. is also used transitively * to look at ' Mc. 
13. 9, 1 C. 1. 26 etc., and perhaps Ph. 3. 2 unless here it = <f>v\d<T(recrde). We 
also have Trpoadx^v dirb Mfc. 16. 6 (bpare /cat TrpoGe%ere dirb, where bpare kclI is 
wanting in the Latin witnesses). 

2 2 P. 2. 12 ev ols dyvoovcnv pXao-cprmovisres 'railing at those things in which 
they know nothing' (the idea is expressed more intelligibly in Jd. 10). 

3 'IXao-Keadai d/aaprias H. 2. 17 is noticeable on account of the object, since 
the classical use is (e£)iXdo7c. debv 'to dispose Him to mercy towards one.' But 
a similar use (-expiare) is also found in lxx. and Philo. Deissmann, N. H. o_ 
[ = Bible Studies 224 f. ] compares also d/napriav i^CK. in Inschr. Dittenberger 
Sylloge 2 633. « b '•" d « v. A pp. p 311. 

§ 34- 1-2.] A CCUS A TIVE. 89 

where the lxx. also has the dat. Buttm. 147; § 37, 3). The following 
are transitive in virtue of their composition with ica/rd (as in class. 
Greek): KaTa/BpafSeveiv Col. 2. 18, Kar ay (avi^eo- 6 ai H. 11. 33, Kara- 
<rocf)L(€(rOat A. 7. 19 (' to get the better of etc.) : with 8id (class.) 
8ta7rop€V6cr6ai, Siepx e(T @ ai > & ia7r ^v in Lc., Acts, and Hebr. (in one 
sentence we have beside this the construction with 8td and the 
geilit., H. 11. 29 Sieftrjcrav ty]V OdXavorav m Sid £if)pds yrjs) : with 
irapd 7rapepx^o-0at (including Mc. 6. 48) : with ircpi TrepiepxecrOac ras 
otKias 1 Tim. 5. 13 (class.), Trepirpex^iv Mc. 6. 55 (ditto), irepio-Trjvai 
Ttm A. 25. 7 (class.), irepidyeiv (also in trans. § 53, 1) Mt. 9. 35, 23. 15, 
Mc. 6. 6 (with vj. ev in Mt. 4. 23): with irpd irpodyuv Mt. 2. 9 etc. 
praecedere aliquem (not class, in this sense), for which we have 
irpokpx^o-Bai in Lc. 22. 47 (D irpoTJyev : there are difficult vll. avrols 
and avrojv), cp. Mc. 6. 33 (many vll., a difficult passage) : * with Mp 
virepex^y Ph. 4. 7 (cp. § 36, 8). 

2. Verbs with variable construction. ES (KaX«s) irowtv in Attic 
take the accus. in all cases, similarly KaKws (woXXd Ka/cot) iroielv Tiva 
and the like ; but in L. 6. 27 we have KaAws iroieire rots - , Mc. 14. 7 
ed 7roc€iv with dat. (this is wanting in ***) r a for the use of these verbs 
with the accus. cp. infra 4. But ax^cXetv and pxdirmv (a rare word) 
take riva in the N.T. as in Attic (Xvo-itcXciv nvi as in Att., but only 
in L. 17. 2 where D has o-vp^epei) ; similarly ko.k«s Xe'^eiv Tiva, but 
only in A. 23. 5 O.T., for which elsewhere kcucoXoyciv Tiva is used in 
A. 19. 9 etc., like tvXoydv, besides which we further have KaXws cL'iroa-iv 
•tyxas, but only in L. 6. 26 (D vplv). (The simple Xc'yciv with accus. of 
the person = 'to allude to anyone in one's speech,' is found in Jo. 1. 
15 [a v.L], 8. 27 [a v.l.], Ph. 3. 18, as in classical Greek.) The 
following verbs of cognate meaning take the accusative : €7rTip€di;€i.v 
(Att. with dat.) nva Mt. 5. 44, L. 6. 28, IP. 3. 16 : Xv|xaiv€<r0ai rcva 
A. 8. 3 (Att. rtvd and nvi) : XoiSopetv rcva Jo. 9. 28, A. 23. 4 (as in 
Att.) : 6v€i8tt€iv (Att. Tivi) nvd Mt. 5. 1 1 etc. (in 27. 44 avrQ is a 
wrong reading for avrov) : pA\u^&r9ai avrovs H. 8. 8 N*AD*aL, avrols 
« c BD c al. (the latter is the Attic use) : KaTap&<r0<u (Att. with dat.) 
with accus. in [Mt.] 5. 44 [D* vplv\ Mc. 11. 21, L. 6. 28 (' 
EHL al. Justin. Ap. i. 15), Ja. 3. 9 (cp. supra 1 jBXaw&ip.eiv, 
v/ttptfav, with which verbs this whole class, with the exception of ev 
Troteiv etc., appears to have been brought into uniformity). 'EvTpeirecrGai 
riva is ' to be afraid of anyone ' (Polyb. and Acts ; the earlier use 
with twos = l to trouble oneself about J ), cp. iTraivxvvewSai supra 1 ; 
Pao-KaCvciv nvd 'to envy,' 'bewitch,' G. 3. 1 (in Attic it perhaps also takes 
tlvl like <j>0ovelvT)] irpo<ria>v€iv riva (Att.) occurs in Mt. 4. 10 O.T.* L. 4. 
8 O.T., 24. 52 (om. D), Jo. 4. 22 bis, 23 (av-rw »* ; in the same verse 
all mss. have r£ Trarpi), 9. 3S D : elsewhere with tivi (a late use, 
Lobeck Phryn. 463) or absolute (irp. ivcoTrtou nvos L. 4. 7) ; -yovvircTctv 
(Polyb.) Ttva Mt. 17. 14 (D omits avrov), Mc. 10. 17 : without a 
case in Mc. 1. 40, with Zpirpoo-dev Mt. 27. 29 (the dat. avrt$ in the 
former passage has very slight support) ; €vayY€XC^€<r0ai in Attic has 
accus. of the thing, dat. of the person: so also in L. 1. 19, 2. 10, 

1 v. App. p. 329. a h v. App. p. 311. 


ACCUSATIVE. [§34.2-3. 

1 C. 15. 1 f. etc.: but it is also found with accus. of the person L. 3. 18 
evyyyeXc^ero rbv AaoV and frequently in Luke and Acts, also G. 1. 9 
(ibid. 8 with dat.), IP. 1. 12 ; x irapcuvctv (only in Luke, from the 
literary language) has accus. instead of the classical dat. A. 27. 22 
(construction like that of irapaKa Xelv) 2 ; xp^ 011 takes ace. in 1 C. 7. 
31 ot xpw/xevot rov Koa-fwv K*ABDFGr, dat. according to i* c D corr EK etc. 
as in 9. 12, 18 etc. (cp. Buttm. p. 157); imvav and oixpav take accus. 
ttjv SiKaLoo-vvrjv Mt. 5. 6 (class, gen.), elsewhere they are used with- 
out a case. 

3. The so-called accusative of the inner object or of content, found 
with intransitive and passive verbs and generally with any verb, is 
used in the N.T. practically in the same way as in the classical 
language (there being a special reason for its being kept, as the 
Hebrew had a similar usage). This accusative, whether it be that 
of a substantive which is radically connected with the verb or of one 
connected only in sense, in most cases requires, in order to have any 
raison d'ttre at all, to be more nearly denned by means of an adjective 
or a genitive, whereas the dative of verbal substantives when simi- 
larly used does not need this nearer definition, see § 38, 3. This is 
also occasionally omitted with the accusative, if the substantive has 
a more concrete meaning, as in Mt. 1 3. 30 (according to the correct 
reading of D Origen etc.) c^o-are (avrd) Sea-fid's (nBC etc. read els 5.) 
1 into bundles/ which is a quite different use from Mt. 12. 29 oV/o-t? 
rbv Icrxvpov (acc. of the outer object), but at the same time is not 
entirely similar to the possible phrase 8elv o'eo-iv, since the acc. Secrpds 
denotes an external result or product of the action (cp. oiKooopeiv 
olklolv L. 6. 48, iroieiv wotypa, ypd<j>etv ypdppLara) ; an object of this 
kind may then become the subject to a passive verb (G. 1. 11). A 
similar instance is L. 2. 8 <j>v\dcro-ovTes <f>v\aKas of 'watch duty,' 
'sentry duty' (so in Xenoph. Anab. 2. 6. 10 etc.; also in lxx.), where 
<fiv\aK7] expresses a definite objective kind of <f>v\do~o-eiv, and by no 
means expresses merely the abstract idea of the verb ; so loelv opapa 
A. 11. 5, 16. 10 (passively opapa <x><fiOii 16. g). s But in other cases 
we have Mt. 2. 10 eydpyicrav xapav fi€YaX.i]V <r<|>o8pa, Mc. 4. 41 €<po/3rj0r]O'av 
(fro/Soy \k(yav, Ap. 16. 9 e kolv parlor 6 r}(rav Kavpa piya, 1 P. 3. 14 rbv cf>6f3ov 
avrwv ('fear of them') pr) <j)o^7]67Jre, Col. 2. 19 avgeu ('grows') 1-771/ 
av^rio-iv rov Oeov. This closer defining of the noun is also not absent 
where the verb stands in a relative sentence : Jo. 17. 26 r) dydirrt t)v 
iiydTnivds pie (y according to D), Mc. 10. 38 to /3dirr co-pa o eyco 
/Sarrrt^opai PawTMrOrivai, Herm. Mand. vii. I 6 </>6f3os ov oela-e cf>of3r)6r\vai. 
To the same class of accusative belong the cases where, in place of 
the substantive with the word which more closely defines it, the 
latter word occurs alone, either in the gender of the substantive, 

1 But not with a double acc; in A. 13. 32 tt]v ... iirayyeXiav should be taken 
with the following clause. 

2 Aidd<TKeii> with dat. instead of acc. in Ap. 2. 14 rests on a reading which is 
quite uncertain. 

3 But afiaprdvovTa djuaprlav 1 Jo. 5. 16 is more closely defined by /ult) irpbs 
BavcLTov : cp. the following words 'iariv ('there is') d[xapTta irpbs 0. 

§ 34- 3-4] A CCUS A TIVE. 9 x 

which must then be supplied, as in L. 12. 47 f. Saprjo-t-ai, 7roAA<xs,, 
oAtyas sc. 7rAr/yag, or more commonly in the neuter : L. 5. 33 

V7)(TT€VOV(riV TTVKVa (=7TVKvds VY]<TT€ias), 2 C. 1 3. I TpLTOV TOVTO €pXOfXai 

('for the third time'), Ph. 1. 6 ireTroiSus avrb tovto ('having this confi- 
dence'), 2. 1 8, 1 C. 9. 25 irdvTa iyKpareverai (but in Herm. Mand. 
viii. 2 kyKp. to irovqpov is an instance of a true objective ace, being 
opposed to TTotdv to v.: ibid. 2-12 the verb is also used with diro, 
genit., and inf.; cp. vyjo-revetv tov k 007x0 v in the Aoyta 'lrjo-ov from 
Oxyrhynchus), 10. 33 TrdvTa ttolctlv dpeo-KCO, 11. 2 wdvTa jllov fikjuvrjo-Oe 
which is still more adverbial 'in everything,' 'in every respect'; to 
8' avTo Ph. 2. 18, Mt. 27. 44 'in like manner' (on which is modelled 
the concise phrase in 2 C. 6. 13 tyjv avTrjv dvTifxio-diav 'in like manner 
in return/ Fritzsche) ; fxr^Sev SiaKpivoiJievos A. 10. 20, cp. 11. 12; 
2 C. 12. 11 ovSev varTtprjo-a, 1 cp. 11. 5, Mt. 19. 20 ri vo~T€pco ; ('wherein 
am I still backward ? ' whereas tlvos vo-t. = ' what do I lack ? '), 2 C. 
12. 13 tl Ictt/v o f)cro-(x)9r)T€ (similar sense); R. 6. 10 6 yap direOavev, 
ttj dfiapTia dirkdavev - o 8e {rj, (rj to> Oew, Gr. 2. 20 6 vvv £cu kv crapKi, 
kv 7rco-T€t {w (the death that He died, the life that He liveth, or 
else = m that He died and liveth). a Still the use of these neuters 
in the N.T. is far less extensive than in the classical language. 

4. A double accusative is found mainly with a number of verbs 
which can take both a personal object as well as (in another relation) 
an object of the thing. Thus SiSdcncciv with d7roo-Tao-iav irdvT<x$ 
rovs- A. 21. 21, cp. Mc. 6. 34 avrovs 7roXkd (where however 77-oAAa 
is rather to be regarded as ace. of the inner object)/ Jo. 14. 26 fyxaV 

TrdvTa, also H. 5. 12 tov SiSdo-Ktiv VfJids Tivd (not TLVo) TOt CTTOfc^eta 

k.t.A. (thus the examples with this verb are not many): &vajjujj.vTJcrK€iv 
1 C. 4. 17, farofupv. Jo. 14. 26. But KpviTTciv Tivd ti is not repre- 
sented, the phrase used being tl drro (Hebr. yfi) tlvos, Mt. 11. 25 
(dir)kKpv\pas tolvtol drrb o-o<£c3i/ (Herm. Sim. ix. 11. 9) or the still more 
Hebraistic i<pv\paTe o^/xa? aVo Trpoo-uTTov tov — Ap. 6. 16 (passively 
K€Kpvp,fxkvov aV avT&v L. 18. 34 [as incidentally also in Homer 
Odyss. 23. 110 KeKpvpifJikva d-tr aAAw^], ki<pvf3iq dirb ScfaOaX/JLiov crov 
19. 42). AlT€tv Tivd tl Mt. 6. 8 (D is different), Mc. 6. 22 f. etc., 
besides which irapd may be used of the person (class.) Jo. 4. 9, 
A. 9. 2 (the middle verb : this never takes double ace), or diro 
Mt. 20. 20 BD (v.l. Trap), 1 Jo. 5. 15 KB (similar v.l.) : IpwTdv (ask a 
question) Tivd tl Mt. 21. 24, Mc. 4. 10. (The following are not 
found with double ace: &<J>aipeiv, -tia-Qai, the person being introduced 

by a7ro L. 16. 3, or placed in the gen. 
also in classical Greek : and dirocrrcpetv 

"ibid. D; L. 10. 42 etc.], as 
r the thing is placed in the 

gen. in 1 Tim. 6. 5, but there is a v.l.]. Uouiv Tivd tl ' to do some- 
thing with' occurs in Mt. 27. 22 rl (accus. of the predicate) ttoitjo-o) 
'hjo-ovv, cp. Herm. Sim. i. 4 tl iroirjo-eis tov dypov, A. 12. 18 tl 6 
UeTpos kykvcTo what was become of P.: Mc. 15. 12 is similar to the 
passage of Matthew, but D reads tw /WiAei = what shall I do to% 
cp. supra 2; with the same meaning we have the construction tl tlvl 

1 The reading oudeu (NBP ovdevos) xf>etw fyu Ap. 3. 17 can hardly be right. 
ab v. App. p. 311. 

92 A CCUS A TIVE. [§ 34^ 4-5. 

Mt. 21. 4 o, L. 20. 15, A. 9. 13, Herm. Sim. v. 2. 2, ix. 11. 8 :, also 

A. 16. 28 p.v)8\v TTpa£y$ [in place of 7roir)<rr)s] creavrM kolkov. In Attic 
the ace. must be used in all cases in this sense, supra 2, whereas 
Troielv tlvl tl < to do something for anyone, 7 as in Mc. 7. 12, 10. 36, 
is also correct Attic Greek. Instead of Troielv ti tlvl we also have 
7r. tl ev tivi or €t§ Tiva, Mt. 17. 12 [om. kv kD al.], L. 21. 31, Jo. 15. 21 
[vfjLiv AD 2 al.] ; cp. KaXbv epyov rjpydcraTO kv kfioi Mc. 14. 6, ets e/xe 
Mt. 26. 10 [Attic has kpy. with double ace] ; ovtus yevrjTai kv kfxoi 
1 C. 9. 15, cp. L. 21. 31 [Buttm. p. 130]). The double ace. is also 
found after verbs of putting on and putting off: kv8i8vo~Keiv, JkSiS. tivol 
tl Mt. 27. 31, Mc. 15. 17, 20, L. 15. 22 ; hence we have also in the 
N.T. (not class.) 7repij3dXXeiv Tivd ti L. 23. 11 AD al. (om. avrbv 
kB al.), Jo. 19. 2 (but not with irepiTiOevai which takes tivi ti 
Mt. 27. 28, nor with 7repi/3dXXeiv when used in other connections, 
see L. 19. 43). Also with \pUiv : H. 1. 9 O.T. Tiva eAaiov, a Hebraic 
use (but in Ap. 3. 18 the ace. KoXXvpiov must certainly be taken in 
connection with dyopda-ai, not with kyxpio-ai). With causative verbs 
this use is more developed than in classical Greek : ttotCIhv Tivd 
TroTTjpiov Mc. 9. 41, ydXa 1 C. 3. 2, 'to make to drink,' cp. Plat. 
Phaedr. 247 e (so also ^a>/u{to in the LXX., 'to make to eat': in 
1 C. 13. 3 with the ace. of the thing only, cp. Winer, § 32, note 4), 
<t>opTi£eiv 'to make to carry' L. 11. 46, 6picti;€iv and kvopK. (strictly 'to 
make to swear by,' Hdt. kgopKovv Tiva to Hrvybs v8o>p 6. 74) 'to adjure 
by' Mc. 5. 7 etc., vide supra 1. — In addition there are the instances, 
few in number, where the ace. of the inner and of the outer object 
are found together: Jo. 17. 26 r) ayaTn? rjv (y according to D) 
rjydTrrjcrds fie, E. 2. 4 tyjv ay. r)v rjyaTrrjcrev ^/xa§, L. 4. 35 fir)8ev [3Xd\pas 
avrov, G. 5. 2 VfJLas ov8ev (hcjyeXfjcrei, 4. 12, A. 25. 10, Mt. 27. 44, 
Mc. 6. 34 (supra). 

5. A different class of double accusative is that where one ace. is 
the ace. of the predicate, the construction corresponding to that of 
intransitive and passive verbs with a double nom. This class is used 
after verbs of 'making (iroielv avrbv (BaonXea Jo. 6. 1 5 [many vll.], cp. sup. 
4, ov eOrjicev KXrjpovofjiou H. 1. 2, tis /xe Kareo-Tycrev Kpirrjv L. 12. 14) : 
having and taking (A. 13. 5 elyov 'Ywdvyv vTrrjperrjv, Ja. 5. 10 V7r68eiyna 
Xd/3ere tovs 7rpo<prjTa^) : designating, calling (Jo. 10. 35 ki<eivovs etire 
Oeovs, 15. 15, Mc. 10. 18 tl fxe Xeyeis dyaOov ; L. 1. 59 eKaXovv avrb 
Za^apiav : in Hebraic Style 1. 13, 31 KaXecreis to ovofxa avrov 'ludvrjv, 
'Irjcrovv, cp. the passive eKXyOrj to ov. a. J h]o-ov<$ 2. 21, Buttm.p. 132 1 ):" 
confessing, opioXoyeiv avrbv Kpicrrov Jo. 9. 22 (with eTvai D), 1 Jo. 4. 2 
(ace. and inf. B), 2 Jo. 7 : regarding, (Ph. 3. 7 tc^to, rjyr) pai £?/xtav, 
ibid. 8 with eTvai introduced, which is elsewhere always wanting 
with rjyeicrOai, whereas vice versa vofxi^eiv and viroXaixfidveiv do not 
appear with a double ace.*/ A. 20. 24 iroiov /zat tyjv \pvyr)v n\iiav, but 
there is a v.l. in which ttoio v/mai is replaced by e^w, for which in this 
sense [ = Lat. habere] cp. L. 14. 18 e\e /xe 7rapr)rr)fxevov, Ph. 2. 29: 
€ X eiv with o>s Mt. 14. 5, 21. 26, like Xoy%eo-Qa\ m 1 C. 4. 1, 2 C. 
10. 2 (pass. R. 8. 36, vide infra), yyelo-Oai ws 2 Th. 3. 15, Clem. 

1 The dat. is used with iwiKakfTiv '6voy.a in Mt. 10. 25 B* v cp. § 37, 7. 
a b v. App. p. 311. 

§ 34- 5-6.] A CCUS A TIVE. 93 

Cor. ii. 5. 6, Herm. Vis. i. 1. 7) : l proving (dwia-ravai G. 2. 18, but 
kavrovs cos deov Slcikovoi 2 C. 6. 4; on 2 C. 7. 11 see § 36, 2 note), 
(feigning, vTroKpivofievovs eavrovs Slkgllovs L. 20. 20 D). Beside 
these double accusatives we occasionally find els prefixed to the 
predicate, showing Hebrew influence (cp. § 33, 3), A. 13. 22 rjyeipev 

olvtols rov AavlS els /3acrtAea, 47 O.T., 7. 2i; Mt. 21. 46 els tt po<prjT7]v 
(tos 77-/0. CD al.) avrbv etxov (more frequent in lxx. ; Clem. 
Cor. i. 42. 4 KaOitrravov els eirio-Koirovs) ; the inserted o>s (other 
instances given above) may also be a Hebraism, cp. eXoyivQ-qixev (W 
R. 8. 36 O.T. (Hebr. 2).— One may refer to this class of double ace. 
L. 9. 14 KaraicXivaTe avrovs KXttrias dvd 7revrrjKOVTa, cp. Mc. 6. 39 ; 
again Mt. 13. 30 Selv avrd Sea-fids, supra 3; and the classical otaipeiv 
tl Svo fJLeprj, Kiihner-Gerth ii. 3 323. 

6. The passives of the verbs specified in 4 (with which verbs when 
used in the passive the person and not the thing usually becomes 
the subject) occasionally appear with the object of the thing -.^ 
2 Th. 2. 15 ras 7rapa86creis as eotSdx^re, 1 C. 12. 13 eV irvevfjia 
e7TOTLcr0r)iJLev (of course evSeov/JLevos, 7repif3ef3\rj[jLevos also take this 
object, but they are middle and not passive) ; 2 we further have 
(formed after the classical ireideiv rivd tl) it eTrei a pueO a rd KpeLcrtrova 
H. 6. 9, and Ph. 3. 8 rd 7rdvra e(r}fjuco9r}v, Mt. 16. 26 rrjv i/svxrjv avrov 
fyfjuioOrj (cp. Mc. 8. 36, L. 9. 25), opposed to Kepoalveiv, and formed 
on the model of (rjfiiovv nva (rjfjLtav, but with a further derivative 
sense of the verb = to lose. 3 Since moreover the person who is 
expressed by the dative after the active verb may become the 
subject to the passive verb (cp. § 54, 3), such passives may also 
appear with the ace. of the thing : 7re7TLcrTevfjLaL to evayyeXiov Gr. 2. 7, 
OLKOVOfJLLav Treiritnev fiat, 1 C. 9. 17, H. 3. 2, rrjv dXvtriv TrepiKeifxai 
A. 28. 20 (active TrepiTiQ'evai riv'i rt), H. 5. 2 (also L. 17. 2 according 
to d XlOov fAvXiKov -irepieKeiro : Herm. Vis. v, 1, Sim. vi. 2. 5). Finally 
we have (formed after 8eiv avrov 7rooas Mt. 22. 13) SeSefievos tovs 7ro6as 
Jo. 11. 44, 8cecf>6apfjLevoL toi/ vovv 1 Tim. 6. 5, pepavTtcr/xevot rds KapSlas, 
XeXovjmevoL to o-w/xa H. 10. 22 f., according to a general usage of the 
Greek language, which is employed with still greater freedom 
especially by St. Paul : KarrjxovfjLevos rbv Xoyov G. 6. 6 ' he who is 
instructed in the gospel,' cp. A. 18. 25, 21. 24, L. 1. 4% while with 
the active verb the person is the object, never the thing; 
ire7rXr]pto]JLevoi Kapirov Slkcuoctvvtjs Ph. 1. II, cp. Col. 1. 9, 'with the 
fruit' (a Hebraism, Exod. 31. 3 eveirX-qcra avrov Trvevfia CTO^tas) ; tv)V 
avTTjv et/coVa pLerafiopc^ovfieOa 2 C. 3. 18 'into the same image'; (on 
rrjv avrrjv avrifuirOiav TrXarvvOrjTe ibid. 6. 13 cp. supra 4, and for tov 
olvtov rpoirov infra 7; dva<f>avevTes rrjv YLvirpov A. 21. 3 is a wrong 
reading for dvacfrdvavTes). 

1 Hermas also has (Sim. viii. 3. 4) yvderr) avrotis iravras robs k.t.X. ' wilt 
recognise them to be those who ' etc. ab v. App. p. 311. 

2 Instead of the ace. with TrepLpaWeadat, the Apocalypse has ev with dat. in 
3. 5, 4. 4 (here AP omit ev) ; so too Mt. 11. 8, L. 7. 25 ^/LKpLeo-fievov ev fiakaKots. 

3 Hdt. 7. 37 is wrongly adduced as a parallel : rrjv \pvxnv rivos (his son's) 
fyfuovaOaL (to lose as a punishment) : the MSS. have ry x//i>xjj. 


A CCUS A TIVE. [§ 34- V -8. 

7. The accusative of reference with adjectives and the like has 
a very limited use in the N.T., since this function is mostly taken 
over by the dative, § 38, 2. Mt. 27. 57 rovvo/xa 'by name' (class.; 
elsewhere ovofiart) : Jo. 6. 10 rbv dpiOpibv cos TrevraKio-xiXioL : H. 
2. 17 7ri<TTb<s apxupevs ra 7rpbs rbv 9e6v. But this same phrase 
rot 7rpbs rbv $e6v R. 15. 17, together with the phrases R. 12. 18 to e£ 

VjAMV — €Lp7]V€VOVT€S, 9. 5 TO KaTOL (TapKOL 2M& 16. 1 9 TO €cj> VfJLLV aS a 

v.L, rb KaO' eh 12. 5, has already become an adverbial accusative, 
similar to iveKOTTTOfi-qv t<x iroXXd (v.l. 7roAAa/as) R. 15. 22, to irXeicnov 
(at most) Tpets 1 C. 14. 27, to irpoTtpov, rb irpurov cp. § 11, 5; in 
to *a# 7 rjfxepav 'daily 7 L. 19. 47, 11. 3, A. 17. 11, 28 D, 19. 9 D the 
article is meaningless, cp. to irpcoL 5. 21 D, to SclXlvov 'in the after- 
noon' 3. 1 D (infra 8); a rb Xonrov and Xoiirov 'for the rest/ 'now,' 
'already' Mt. 26. 45 = Mc. 14. 41 (in both passages a v.l. without 
to), A. 27. 20 (A.), 2 C. 13. 11 (A.), E. 6. 10 rb X. (k*AB to£ AonroS 
'henceforth/ see § 36, 13), and frequently in the Pauline Epp., also 
H. 10. 13 (also Attic); rb vvv k'xov A. 24. 25 'for the present 7 
(Lucian and others); rb reXos 'finally' 1 P. 3. 8, tyjv dpxqv 'from 
the beginning/ 'at all' Jo. 8. 25. Again, the phrases 6V rpo-n-ov 
Mt. 23. 37 and passim, rbv ofiotov rpoirov Jd. 7 come under the head 
of accusative of the inner object (besides which we have the dat. 
Ph. 1. 18 iravrl TpoVw, § 38, 3, and KaO y ov to. A. 15. ir, 27. 25, cp. 
R. 3. 2, 2 Th. 2. 3). 

8. Accusative of extension in space and time : L. 22. 41 aireo-irao-Qr) 
dir olvtujv coo-el XiQov ftoXrjv, 2. 44, Jo. 6. 19, answering the question 
How far? where the ace. may be regarded as a kind of object of 
the thing; Jo. 2. 12 epLetvav ov iroXXds f]/j.epas } answering the 
question How long *? (to be similarly explained, cp. the dat. § 38, 5) ; 
as to Mt. 20. 2 o-vfji(f>u)V€Lv €K SrjvapLov ('at a denarius 7 ) ttjv rjfiepav, 
'a day/ 'per day/ vide § 36, 8. & Further, vvktol /cat ^jmepav 'day and 
night 7 Mc. 4. 27, L. 2. 37, A. 26. 7; tols rjpLepas — ras vvktols L. 21. 37 
'during the days, the nights 7 ; rj/xepav !£ yjjiepas 2 P. 2. 8 is classical. 
This accusative appears to go beyond its own department in the 
phrases to SetXtvov, rb irpcol (see 7), where the question asked is 
When? (cp. fiecrov rjnepas lxx. Dan Sus. 7); 2 as it does moreover 
in its use with copa (occurring in classical Greek) : Jo. 4. 52 ex@es 
copav ef386[ir]v, Ap. 3. 3 iroiav copav, A. 10. 30 (and verse 3 with v.l. 
irepl copav evdrrjv as in verse 9), cp. Aesch. Eum. 159 copav ovSevbs 
koivtjv, Eurip. Bacch. 722 rrjv TeTaypLevrjv copav, Aristot. 7 A#. HoXlt. 
cap. 30 ad fin. ttjv copav ty]v 7rpoppr)$dorav, Demosth. 54. 4 etc. ( = els 
copav, 'at the hour/ eVt t. copav A. 3. 1), although the N.T. has also 
Trota copa and similar phrases, for which and for the encroachment 
of the dat. on the functions of the accus. see § 38, 4 and 5. A 
peculiar idiom is found in A. 27. ^^ recrcrapecrKaLSeKdTrjv o-rjpLepov 
rjixepav, i.e. 'it is to-day the 14th day since 7 etc., 'to-day is the 

1 'Odbv ddXdcrcrrjs Mt. 4. 15 O.T. is a literal rendering of the Hebr. "-jti = versus, 
which appears elsewhere in the lxx., e.g. Deut. 11. 30. 

2 Cp. also lxx. T7)v fjL€<rr)fx(3pLav Gen. 43. 16, to irpcoi Ex. 7. 15. See Sophocles 
Xexic. p. 44 ab v. App. p. 311. 

§ 34- § 3S 1-2.] GENITIVE. 95 

14th day in succession that,' cp. Demosth. rpirov hos tovti, 'it is 
now the third year that/ — In answer to the question How far 
distant ? beside the accUS. (L. 24. 13 d-n-exovo-av o-radlovs k^KOvra 
aTro 'lepovo-., cp. A. 1. 12), we find also drro with the genitive, 
probably a Latinism (a millibus passuum duobus, Caes. B. Gr. 2. 7) : 
Jo. 11. 18 rjv Brjdavia eyyvs rcov 'lep.., <os dirb crraStW SeKairevre, cp. 
21. 8, Ap. 14. 20, Herm. Vis. iv. 1. 5 (Diod., Plut. etc.; W. Schulze, 
Graeca Latina, 15 ff.). 


1. By far the most extensive use of the genitive is that by which it 
defines a noun more closely after the manner of an adjective, and 
like an adjective either as attribute or predicate ; in the latter case 
the genitive is said to be dependent on etvcu (ylveo-Oat etc.). The 
kind of relation which exists between the genitive and its noun 
can only be decided by the sense and context : in the N.T. this 
is often purely a matter of theological interpretation, which cannot 
form part of the teaching of a grammatical work. The place of 
the noun, which is defined by the genitive, may also be taken by 
a pronoun and more especially by the article. We select here only 
the points that are worthy of note. 

2. Genitive of origin and membership. — As in the classical 
language, the genitive is used where a particular person is indicated 
by the mention of his father, 'IdKuyfiov rbv tov ZefleSacov Mt. 4. 21 
etc., a use in which the introduction of vlos is perfectly admissible, 
'liodv-qv rbv Z(x\apiov vlov L. 3. 2 ; in the case of the sons of Zebedee, 
if named together, vloi (almost) always appears, Mt. 26. 37, 27. 56, 
Mc. 10. 35, L. 5. 10, only in Jo. 21. 2 ABL al. read ol tov Z., while 
ol viol Z. is read by **DE ; where vlos is omitted the introduction 
of one article, contrary to the usual classical practice, causes the 
insertion of the article with the other noun as well, thus AavlS 
tov tov 'Iecro-afc A. 13. 22 O.T., cp. § 46, 10 (but without an article 
'lovSav 2t/xwvos 'lo-KaptioTov Jo. 6, 71 etc., similarly in Greek style 
2co7raTpos Hvppov Bepoiaios A. 20. 4). Indication of the mother by 
her son's name : Mc. 15. 40 (cp. Mt. 27. 56) Mapia rj 'laKufiov rov 
jXLKpov Kal 'luorrJTos n^Tijp, whence in verse 47 M. 07 TwcttJtos, 15. 1 
M. f) 'laKufiov as in L. 24. 10 (the article with the gen. is in this 
case neglected except in Mt. 27. 56 fj rov } IaK. - /ubrjrrjp). Of the 
wife by her husband's name (this is also classical) : Mt. 1. 6 tt)s tov 
QvploVj Jo. 19. 25 MapiapL r} tov KAo^a. 1 Whether in the case of 
the apostle called 'lovSas 'laKufBov L. 1. 16, A. 1. 13, vlos or in 
accordance with Jd. 1 d8e\(j>6s is to be supplied (the latter is 
grammatically admissible : cp. TifjLOKpdrrjs 6 MyjTpoScopov sc. a6\ 
Alciphron Ep. ii. 2) is a question which need not be discussed here. 
Membership in a family (including a family of slaves) : twi> XAo^s 
1 C. 1. 11, tovs (sc. brethren, Christians) €k tuv (sc. slaves) 'Apiaro- 
fiovXov, NapKLo-arov B,. 16. 10 f. Ylos occurs in a metaphorical sense 

j J The v.l. in A. 7. 13 r&v vi&v 'E^wp tov 2u%eA<- (DH : al. iv 2. or rod iv 2.) 
is explained by Gen. 33. 19 as *E. iroiTpos 2., which in any case is wrong. 

96 GENITIVE. [§ 35. 2-4. 

(a common Hebraism) : 1 Th. 5. 5 viol faros eorre kcu viol rjpLepas ; 
hence with omission of vlos, the genitive being also used predicatively, 
ovk ecrfJLev WKrbs ov8e ctkotovs 1 Th. 5. 6, r)p J epas ovres 8, cp. H. 10. 39 
ovk €o-fjb€v vttoo-toXtjs — dXXd 7ricrreo>s. a Possession or discipleship : 
ot rov XpLcrrov 1 C. 15. 23 ; as predicate, A. 27. 36 rov Oeov ov et/xt, 

R. 8. 9 OVTOS OVK €0~TLV (ZVTOV (Xp.), 1 C. 1. 12, 3. 4 €yO) //,6V elfJLL 

IlavXov etc., 6. 19 ovk ecrre eavrw ('do not belong to yourselves,' cp. 

20), 3. 21 7T<XVTa VfJLGJV €CTTfc ( = VfA€T€pa, Cp. § 48, 7) ) L. 20. I4; A. 1. 7 

oi>x fytwv lort yi/wvat 'does not belong to you/ 'is not your concern,' 
2 P. 1. 20 7rpo<prjT€ta Ideas e7TiXvo-e(iis ov yiverai ; H. 5. 14 reXeliov eo~rlv 
rj o~reped rpo(f>rj ; Herm. Sim. VU1. 7. 6 r) far) wavrcov eo~rl tQ>v - , cp. 
A. 10. 36 after the removal of the interpolated Kvpios, A. 20. 3 
(Thuc. 1. 113). — The use of ev, els with the genitive of the house of 
anyone is not found in the New Testament, nor yet the phrases ev, 
els A'tSov (as in Clem. Cor. i. 4. 11), instead of which we have ev to> 
aSy L. 16. 22, els dSrjv A. 2. 27 O.T. (cl&ov EP and some mss. of the 
LXX.), 31 (a8ov ACDEP). 

3. Objective genitive. Noteworthy instances are Mt. 24. 6 aKoal 
TToXefjoDv 'rumours of wars': A. 4. 9 evepyeoria dvOp&irov 'to a man': 
E. 10. 2 (fjXos Oeov 'concerning God' (Jo. 2. 17 O.T. 6 £ rov olkov o-ov): 
Jo. 7. 13, 20. 19 8id rbv <fi6/3ov rcov 'lovSaluv 'fear of the Jews/ 
Further instances : Mt. 13. 18 rr)v 7rapa(3oXr)v rov onreipovros (cp. 36) 
about, of: 1 C. 1. 6 to fxaprvpcov rov Xptcrrov, 1. 18 6 Xoyos 6 rod 
vravpov, Mt. 4 23 etc. rb evayy eXiov rrjs /3ao~LXeias, Mc. 1. I to evayy. 
'Irjo-ov Xp. ; phrases similar to the last are frequent in St. Paul 
(besides this use we have evayy. Oeov in R. 1. 1 and elsewhere, 
denoting the author, the meaning being there explained by irepl rov 
vlov avrov in verse 3; rb evayy. fxov R. 2. 16, 16. 25, cp. 2 C. 4. 3,* 
2 Tim. 2. 8, denoting the preacher; and rb evayy. rrjs aKpofivcrrlas 
Gr. 2. 7 = ' among,' 'to,' similar to the use of evayy eXi^ea-Oai nva; but 
evayy. MaT0atov etc. would be presumptuous and false, as if the 
individual evangelist had a special gospel proceeding from himself/ 
therefore Kcrnx M. etc. is used, i.e. according to Matthew's presenta- 
tion of it). Other objective genitives are Trto-ns T^o-ou Xp. R. 3. 22** 
etc., for which we also have 71-. els rbv Kvptov 'I. Xp. A. 20. 21 etc. and 
kv Xp. 'I. 1 Tim. 3. 13 etc.: viraKor) rov Xp., rrjs Trtcrraos, r. dXyjOeias 

2 C. 10. 5, R. 1. 5, 1 P. 1. 22 etc., whereas dydirr) rov 6eov can be 
both subjective and objective, but in 8u<aioo-vvr) r. 0. and Slk. rrjs 
TTLcrreoys the gen. indicates the author and the cause respectively, 
hence r) 4k 0. 8lk. Ph. 3. 9, r) eK irto-rebis 5. R. 9. 30, also 8td iricrreias 
Ph. 3. 9. In R. 2. 7 viropLovr) epyov dyaOov ' endurance in ' is also a 
kind of objective genitive ; on the other hand 1 Th. 1. 3 rrjs viropovrjs 
rrjs eXiriSos is parallel with the phrases rov epyov rrjs irio-renys and rov 
kottov rrjs dyaTrrjs, and is rather to be regarded as subjective, express- 
ing patient hope in conjunction with active faith (cp. G-. 5. 6) and 
labouring love. 

4. The genitive of the whole or partitive genitive has not altogether 
died out, although its place has been taken to a great extent by the 
periphrasis with J£ (dirb, ev). e Mt. 5. 29 f. ev t<dv fxeXwv crov, 6. 29 

abed e v# App. p. 311. 

§ 35- 4.] GENITIVE. gy 

€V TOVTbiV, 10. 42 eVa TWV flLKpiOV TOVTLOV etC.j bllt 10. 29, 18. 12 €V l£ 

olvtwv, 26. 21 efs !£ fyuoi/ etc.: in Mt. 6. 27, 7. 9, L. 11. 5, 12. 25 and 
elsewhere rls e£ £//,a)v ; and, generally speaking, in the case of ris the 
gen. appears more frequently with e£ than without it (Mt. 22. 28 has 
tlvos twi/ €7TTa, but twv €7TTa appears not to be genuine : Mc. 12. 23 
tlvos avTuv, here also the gen. is wanting in Ack : L. 7. 42 tls avTtov, 
but a^T. is omitted by D etc.: 14. 5 rtVos v/xwi/, D e£ v^mv : 20. 33 
TiVos a^TWT/, but avT. om. K*e ff, 2 so that the only certain instances of 
the simple gen. remaining are A. 7. 52, H. 1. 5, 13). With tls, 
however, the reverse is the case, the simple gen. preponderating 
(except in John) ; with e/cao-Tos it is found exclusively ; but ttols !£ 
vfjLuv L. 14. 33. This use of e£ can hardly be called classical 
(although fiovos e£ aTrdvTuv and similar phrases occur), 1 still it is 
more classical than that of diro in Mt. 27. 21 rtva obrb tcov 8vo ; a the 
use of 6i/ also has classical precedent, Ja. 5. 13, 14, 19, 1 C. 15. 12 
rts eV v/juv, A. 5. 34 tis ev tco crvveSptco (D Ik toi> crvveSplov) ; cp. on the 
periphrasis for the partitive gen. with verbs, § 36, 1. This gen. is 
used predicatively in &v eo-riv^Yfievatos 1 Tim. 1. 20, A. 23. 6 : with 
Ik Jo. 18. 17, L. 22. 58, 1 C. 12. 15 I (Clem. Cor. ii. 14. 1, 18. 1). 
The following is noticeable : Tot avTa tcov TraOrjfidTcov 1 P. 5. 9 
(strictly incorrect). — The employment of the partitive gen. or a 
periphrasis for it as subject or object of the sentence is peculiar: 

JO. 16. 17 €L7TOV €K TCOV jULa6r]TCOV dVTOV (sOHie Of his disciples) TTpOS 

dXXrjXovs, 7. 40 €K tov o^kov <XKOV<ravT€s — eXeyov, 2 Trapayevo/xevcov €K 
rrjs TroXem L. 8. 35 D (some men of the town), A. 21. 16 crwrjXOov 
Se /cat (!k add. E) tcov pLaOrjrQv dirb Katcrapetas, 3 19. 2>Z * K T °v o\Xov 
(sc. tlvcs), Ap. 11. 9, L. 21. 16 OavaTCocrovcrLV J£ vficov (sc. Tim?), 
11. 49/Mt. 23. 34, Ap. 2. 10, 2 Jo. 4; it even takes the place of a 
dative in Jo. 3. 25 kykvero {rjTrjcrLS €K tcov juaOrjTcov 'Icodvov pera 
'lovSaiov (-cov) 'on the part of some of the disciples,' cp. A. 15. 2. c 
This form of expression is due to Hebrew influence QIC), although 
in isolated cases the genitive is also so used in Attic (Xenoph. Anab. 
3, 5. 16 : Hellen. 4, 2. 20). — To the class of partitive genitives 
belongs also the gen. of the country, added to define the particular 
place intended, and always with the article (§ 46, 11) : Na£ape# ttjs 
YaXtXacas Mt. 21. 11, Mc. 1. 9, Kavd t^s TaX. Jo. 2. I, Tapcrbs rrjs 
KlXlklcls A. 22. 3, with ttoXls 21. 39, 16. 12 t]tls (QiXlttttol) ZcttIv 
TrpdjTYjs (as should be read) /xeptSos rrjs MaxeoWas ttoXis. As a 
definition of time: (oft o-a/S/SaTcov Mt. 28. 1, but not 'late on the 
Sabbath,' since the next clause and Mc. 16. 1 show that the meaning 
must be 'after the Sabbath '*), Sis tov o-a/3/3dTov 'twice in the week' 
L. 18. 12. A further instance may be noticed : L. 19. 8 to, fjfucreia 
(t<x rj/iicrv AR[D]) tcov virapxovTiov with classical assimilation to the 
gen. instead to yjfiio-v (Kiihner-G-erth ii. 3 279, rj rjfjLio-eta ttjs yrjs) ; 

1 MSvos in the N.T. is never more nearly defined by a reference to the whole 
of which it is a part. 

2 IL0W0I is an interpolation of TAA al. 

3 Here however rives r(av may have dropped out after /laBrjTup, since a second 
article is required. abcd Ym App. p. 312. 


98 GENITIVE. [§ 35. 4-5. 

elsewhere we have ^/xlo-v Kaipov Ap. 12. 14 (cp. 11. 9, 11 without a 

genitive), ecos rjpLiorovs rfjs fiaanXeias Mc. 6. 23, like to SeKaTOv 
(sc. fJLtpos) ttJs TToAews Ap. 11. 13. 

5. A nearer definition of any kind by means of quality, direction, 
aim etc. is expressed by the genitive in a long series of phrases, 
some of which obviously take their origin from Hebrew (in which 
language the adjective is but slightly developed) : /jliotOov rfjs a6Was 
A. 1. 18, p. d8. 2 P. 2. 15, 6 otKovofjios rfjs ddiKias L. 16. 8, rov (JLapuiva 

rf]S a$. 9, 6 KpLTYJS T. a6\ 18. 6 = 6 dSiKOS (Cp. 16. II €V Tip dSiKCO 

fxajuLiDva) : Kapftia irovqpa dirco-rcas H. 3. 12, pfj/xara j3Xacr(j)7)ixLas A. 
6. ii »*D with V.l. J3\do-<j>r]iJLa, cp. Ap. 13. I, 17. 3, X°M niKpias 

A. 8. 23, ptfa TTLKpcas H. 12. 15 cp. lxx. Deut. 29. 18, 1 A. 9. 15 
ctkcvos ei<Xoyfjs = IkXcktov (in R,. 9. 22 f. crKevrj opyfjs, ctk. iXeovs are 
different, being equivalent to persons who bear the wrath or the 
mercy), ol Xoyoi rfjs ^dpiros L. 4. 22, irdOr\ dripias H. 1. 26, 6 oTvos 
rov dvpiov Ap. 14. 10 etc. (where there is no equivalent adjective 
which could replace the gen.), to o-w/xa rfjs dfiapr ias E. 6. 6, to or. 
rov Oavdrov 7. 24 (cp. Ovqrov or. 6. 12, 8. 11), t. cr. t^s Ta7retvcucreo)s 
rjjjLtov and t. <r. t?}s $6£rjs avrov Ph. 3. 21, t. cr. t?}s crapi<6s Col. 1. 22, 
2. 1 1 etc. The reverse order of words e.g. eVt irXovrov acfyAoV^Tt = 
aSi?Aa> ttXovtco 1 Tim. 6. 17 (4i/ KatvorrjTL fofjs R. 6. \ = kv Kacvrj £0)77, 
but cp. 7. 6) may be paralleled from the classical language (W. 
§ 34, 3). Further noticeable instances are fj^epa Spyfjs, o-cDrrjptas, 
67uo-K07rfjs etc. after Hebrew models R 2. 5, 2 C. 6. 2 O.T., 1 P. 
2. 12, also dvaSeigeays L. 1. 80, in which there is nothing remarkable 
but the Hebraic substitution of rjpuepa for xp° v °s (°' XP° V0L T ^ s 
alpecreoys Aeschin. 2. 58): dvdo-raans £o)fjs and Kpco-cws 'to life' etc. 
Jo. 5. 29 (a. €ts (wjv lxx. 2 Mace. 7. 14) : 68bs €0vwv Mt. 10. 5, 68bv 
(a kind of preposition like tj*VT, § 34, 8, note 1) OaXdo-o-rjs 4. 15 O.T. : 
instances with the meaning ft>, as f) Ovpa ruv irpofidruv Jo. 10. 7, 
7rto-T€tos A. 14. 27 (but #. to-9 Aoyov Col. 4. 3 = a door by which the 
word enters), pieroLKeoria l&ajSvXQvos Mt. 1. II f., 7) Siao-iropa r<x)V 
z EXXrjv(Dv Jo. 7. 35 : with the meaning among (from), kivSwol Trora^v, 
Xycrrcav 2 C. 11. 26, followed by e£ eOv&v, ev OaXdcrcrrj, etc. — To the 
gen. of content belongs among other instances Jo. 21. 8 to Slktvov 
t(ov l)(9v(0v (like class. irXoia o-ltov) ; to the gen. of apposition 
(Kiihner-Gerth ii. 3 264 d), i.e. where the genitive takes the place of 
a word' in apposition with another, 2 0. 5. 5 rov dppaf3Q>va rov 
Trvevpuaros ('which consists in ? etc.), R,. 4. 1 1 arrjfjLtlov irepLrop/qs (7T€ptTOfir)v 
AC*), Jo. 2. 2 rov vaov rov crw/xaTos avrov, E. 4. 9 rd Kanorepa [jmeprfj 
rfjs yrjs (not partitive, see Win. § 59, 8, but perhaps gen. of the 
thing compared) etc.; also 2 P. 2. 6 iroXeis 'EoSojjloiv /ecu To^oppas 
like TAiou ttoXlv Horn. II. 5, 642 etc. (this construction occurs here 
only in the N.T., since xoAews Qvarelpuv A. 16. 14 is the gen. of 
wo Ats Bvdreipa, like iroXei 'Y67nrr) 11. 5 ; cp. also 2 C. 11. 32 r-qv 
iroXiv Aa/xao-KTjvwv, Ap. 3. 12, 18. 10, 21, 21. 2, 10). — On the gen. 

1 M17 ris icrnv iv vjuuv pifa &vu) ^vovacL £v x°^V /fa ' Ti^P'? y but pifa iriKplds is read. 
by cod. AF, and tvox^y for h %. by B*AF*, and this was the reading followed 
by the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews. 

§ 35- 5-6.] GENITIVE. 99 

with adjectives and participles used substantially see § 47, 1. — : 
The gen. is used predicatively (supra 2 and 4), denoting quality, 
in Mc. 5. 42 rjv €7W SwSe/ca, L. 2. 42 ore eyeveTo ertov SwSe/ca (D is 
different), 1 H. 12. II 7racra TraiSei'a ov SoKei x a P^ s etvai, aAAa Xvirrjs. 

6. As in classical Greek, there is nothing to prevent two genitives 
of different meaning from being connected with a single substantive : 
2 C. 5. 1 rj eiriyeios rjixOtv oiKia tov o-ktjvovs, possessive gen. and gen. 
of apposition, Ph. 2. 30 to v/jlcov (subjective) vcrTeprjfia ttJs ~pos fie 
XeiTovpylas (objective), Ap. 7. 17, 2 P. 3. 2 Trjs tcoi/ airocTToXbiV vfiojv 
('apostles sent to you') evToXrjs tov Kvpiov koI o-^jrjpos (closely with 
airoo-T. 'sent from etc. to'). 2 In most cases, however, if several 
genitives stand together, one of them is dependent on the other, 
a practice through which writers, especially St. Paul, are occasionally 
brought to a really burdensome accumulation of words : 2 C. 4. 5 
rbi/ ^wTtcr/xbi/ tov evayyeXlov ('which proceeds from the gospel') Trjs 
Sogrjs (content) tov Xpio-Tov, E. 1. 6 els eiraivov 86£t]s (a single idea, 
cp. Ph. 1. 17 els 86£av koL eiraivov) Trjs yapLTOS avrov, B 4. 13 els fxeTpov 
rjXiKLas tov 7r\r)p(OfiaTos tov XpicrTOV, 1. 18, 19, Col. 2„ 12, 1 Th. 1. 3 
Trjs vwofJLOvrjs Trjs eXiriSos (supra 3) tov Kvpiov rjfjtsQv; 41 Ap. 14. 8 €K 


should be removed from this passage and from 18. 3 (with Griesbach) 
as an interpolation from 14, 10, 16. 19 to ttotyjplov tov olvov tov 
OvfJiov Trjs opyrjs clvtov (avTOV om. tf), 19. 15 Tr)v Xr)vbv tov olvov tov 
Bvfjiov TTJs opyrjs tov Oeov. The last genitive of the series is usually 
a possessive (Buttm. 136). In order that some clue may be left for 
the understanding of the construction, it is necessary (and also in 
conformity with Hebrew precedent) that the governing genitive 
should always stand before the dependent genitive, while in the 
case where two genitives are dependent on a single noun, one is 
placed before and the other after the noun, see the instances given 
above (Buttm. 135 £). It has further been maintained (ibid. p. 
294 f.), that in a case where a genitive without the article dependent 
on a preposition governs another genitive, the former must always 
occupy the first place : in the same way that a word in any case 
without an article usually, though not always (Mt. 13. 33 els dXevpov 
o-oiTa Tpia) precedes the genitive which it governs. Exceptions 
however must be admitted in the former case as well ; Mt. 24. 3 1 

1 Here also belongs Ap. 21. 17 i/j£Tpr)<T€i> to reixos avrrjs enarbv - 7r7)x&i>, = 
' amounting to 100 cubits,' cp. ibid. 16. 

2 However, there is so much obscurity and harshness in this passage that 
one is justified in supposing some corruption of the text {tt)s <5tot> t&v airovr. ? 
cp. the Syriac). 

3 DE read ttjs do&s, which would necessitate the rendering * the praise of 
the glory of His grace'; cp. 1. 12 els tir. {tt)s add. A) do&s avrov, 14 els &r Trjs 
(tt)s om. tf) 56^7/s avrov. 

4 Here further, the possessive v/ulCop is dependent on the first of the two geni- 
tives in each case fpyov, tcbirov, viro{xovr)s, according to the prescribed rule (see 
below in the text) ; but the Western and Syriac mss. put this vjulQv after Trlareus, 
and some of these also make the sentence much smoother by reading the ace. 

TO tyyOP — TOV KOTTOV — T7}P VTT0jJi0V7]V. 


/ui€Ta o-aXiriyyos <l>(i)vfjs fxeydXrjs, if the reading is correct, 1 means 
'with a loud trumpet-sound 7 (cp. H. 12. 19, Ap. 1. 10, 4. 1, 8. 13), 
and 2 C. 3. 18 a7ro Kvplov irvevixaros 'from the spirit of the Lord/ 
cp. verse 17. 2 Also fiaTTTLo-p&v BtSax^js H. 6. 2 (unless B is right in 
reading SLSaxjv) can only mean ' teaching of baptisms.' 


1. The genitive is used in Greek in connection with verbs in a 
series of instances where the partitive meaning is obvious. In the 
N.T. this partitive genitive with verbs is replaced, even more fre- 
quently than in the other cases mentioned (§ 35, 4), by a periphrasis 
with a preposition (or the use of another case). It is true that 
fjLeTa\afJLj3dveiv 'to partake of always has the gen. (A. 2. 46, 27. 33 f., 
2 Tim. 2. 6, H. 6. 7, 12. 10; the verb has a different meaning in 
the combination Kaipbv fjieraXa^cov A. 24. 25 = Polyb. 2, 16. 25 = ' to 
get [an opportunity] later'); so also [hcrky^iv in 1 C. 9. 12, 10. 21, 
H. 2. 14, 5. 13, 7. 13, though //-er. Ik is found as well in 1 C. 10. 17, 
and just as these constructions with the gen. are limited to Luke, 
Paul, and Hebrews, so koivu>v&v tlvos only appears in H. 2. 14, while 
Paul, Peter, and John say ko Lvuvdv tlvl (using the dat. not only 
of the person as in classical Greek, but also of the thing as in 
E-. 15. 27 rots TrvevfxaTLKOLS avrwv tKOLVtovrjorav rot eOvrj, cp. 1 Tim. 
5. 22, 1 P. 4. 13, 2 Jo. 11; K 12. 13 holds an intermediate position), 
or else kolvmvclv tlvl (person) ev tlvl G. 6. 6, or els Xoyov 6\xrecos kcu 
\rjfjL\peu>s Ph. 4. 15. MeTaSiSovai never has the genitive, but the 
accusative, if it is the whole which is imparted R 1. 11, 1 Th. 2. 8 
(the classical usage is analogous), elsewhere only the dat. of the 
person ; /xeTetvat is unrepresented ; o e^wv pepos iv — (of the 
thing) occurs in Ap. 20. 6. But the greater number of the con- 
structions which come under this head — to take of, to bring, eat, 
drink of etc. — have been lost to the genitive, and are expressed 
by €/< or dbro : L. 20. IO ct7ro tov Kapirov Swo-ooxm', 8 Mc. 12. 2 Lva 
Xdfir) dirb T(ov Kapirov (only in A. 27. 36 do we have Trpoo-eXdfiovTo 
Tpocf>rjs [with many var. lect.], like yeveo-QaL, vide infra; beside which 
ibid. $^ fiTjSev -irpoo-XapofxevoL is correctly used to indicate not the 
whole but the part), Jo. 21. 10 eveyKdTe dirb tmv o^aptW, 1 C. 11. 

28 €K TOV dpTOV €O-^i6T0), Jo. 4. 1 4 OS OLV TTLTj €K TOV vScLTOS (aS Well aS 

ZctQUlv ti, where the object consists of the whole, Mc. 1. 6 eo-dioiv 
aK/ofc6\is kol p.e\i dypLov, like Aristoph. Eq. 604 yjctOlov 8e tovs 
irayovpovs ; 1 C. 8. IO rot elScaXoOvTa ecr0L€Lv, cp. 7, Ap. 2. 14, 20, ix. 

1 Qiavrjs is wanting in i*L etc., D al. have cr. kclI <puv. [xey. ; I have bracketed 
eakir. as an interpolation from passages like Ap. 1. 10 (cp. 1 Th. 4. 16). 

2 The Vulgate has a domino spiritu (Marcion ace. to Tertull. read a domino 
spirituum- Kvpiov irvevfjL&Toov). There might also appear to be an irregular 
order of words in the reading given by Origen (in Matt. torn. xiv. 14) in 1 C. 
2. 4 : ovk iv ireiQoL aocpias Xoywv, &W iv anode't^et wverjfJLaros dvvdfieoos. But cp. 
with the last words irvevfJLa ttjs iriarews 2 C. 4. 13, irv. aocpias koI atroKakuxpem 
E. 1. 17 etc. 

3 The use with the simple gen. in Ap. 2. 17 rep vlkovvti dibao) avrcp rod (so AC; 
to B, ck tov tf) fxdvva rod K€KpvfjLjj,ivov is not authentic. 


meat which comes from sacrifices; 1 C. 10. 18 ol ko-Olovres ras 
Ovo-ias, which they consume in common). 1 Of verbs of cognate 
meaning to these, xopTd^iv ' to satisfy ? (vulgar word for Kopewvvai, 
see Athenaeus iii. 99 e) has the genitive Mc. 8, 4, the passive 

-atjeo-Oai only has diro, €K L. 15. 16, 2 16. 21, Ap. 19. 21, ko P €VVw0cu 
(literary language) has the gen. A. 27. 38; yevearBai has the gen. in 
yeveo-dai Oavarov Mt. 16. 28 etc., H. 2. 9, tov Seiirvov L. 14. 24, 
H7)8evbs A. 23. 14, tt}s Swpeas H. 6. 4 : on the other hand the ace. 
in Jo. 2. 9 rb v§a)p, H. 6. 5 Seov prjfjLa, not a classical but most 
probably a popular usage. The phrase eyco crov ovat^v Philem. 20 
(the word only occurs here) 3 is derived from the literary language; 
airokavav is unrepresented; <f>€i8o|i.<u always has the gen., but is 
limited to Luke (A. 20. 29), Paul (R. 8. 32 and passim) and 2 Peter 
(2. 4 £). 

2. Closely related to a partitive genitive is the gen. with verbs 
of touching and seizing. Of this we have the following N.T. 
instances : eLirrco-ecu Mt. 8. 4 and frequently in the Gospels (in John 
only in 20. 17 besides 1 Jo. 5. 18; in the Epistles besides the last 
passage quoted only in 1 C. 7. 4, 2 C. 6. 17 O.T.; never in Acts), 
KaOdiTTeiv A. 28. 3, 9i77dv€iv (literary language) H. 11. 28, 12. 20; 
4mXa|j.pdv€o-8ai Mt. 14. 31, Mc. 8. 23, Luke passim, 1 Tim. 6. 12, 19, 
H. 2. 16, 8. 9 O.T., 'to lay hold on any one (anything)': also with 
the part expressed in the gen., Mc. 8. 23 eiriXafiofAevos rrjs x €L P 0< > T °v 
rvifiXov* so that the correct construction is in all cases the gen.; 5 
on the other hand, KpaT«tv Ho seize,' 'to hold' (Hellenistic) has 
the whole in the accus. as in Mt. 14. 3 Kparrjo-as rbv Tcoai^i/, and 
the gen. is confined to the part which one seizes on, Mt. 9. 25 
iKparrjare rrjs x €L P° s ( T V V X e W a ^) avrfs, Mc. 1. 31 (not D), 5. 41 
(rr)v x^P a D), L. 8. 54 {Kpardv nva tlvos is not found except in 
Mc. 9. 27 according to A al, where «BD read as in the other 
passages): in metaphorical sense, 'to hold fast to/ 'lay hold on,' 
with gen. (probably due to the use of Kparelv 'to get the mastery of 
with gen. in the literary language) H. 4. 14, 6. 18. Luke also says 
mdcras (vulgar word = A.a/3o)v) avrbv rrjs X €L P°S A. 3. 7, like Xaf3(ov 
HoXvgevrjv x € /°° s Eurip. Hec. 523. a In addition to these we have 

1 Still in many places a classical writer would have employed the gen. where 
the ace. occurs in the N.T., as in Jo. 6. 53 eav /xt? cpay-qre tt)v <r&pica tov vlov tov 
avO. teal irir\Te avTov to atfia, cp. the use of the ace. in 54, 56, 57 with Tpcvyeiv, a 
verb which in the N.T., as in classical Greek, never takes the gen., but which 
a classical writer would not have used in this connection. 

2 There is a v.l. in APQ al. yefilaai tt)v KoCKlav ai>Tov dird, cp. infra 4. 

3 OIjtojs 6vaifi7]p t&v t€kvu)v Aristoph. Thesm. 469 ; on the other hand, apart 
from these combinations with the gen. of the person, the use of dir6 with this 
verb is found as early as Plato, Charmid. 175 e airb ttjs o-ca^poaijvrjs. 

4 The reading of D \a(36/j.evos tt)v x eL P a T °v t. is neither in the style of classical 
(Plato Parmen. ad init. tt)s x €L P° s ) nor N.T. Greek (which never has the middle 

5 The apparent instances of £iri\anfi. with ace. are for the most part no more 
than apparent: in A. 9. 27 (cp. 16. 19, 18. 17) eirCKa^ofxevos clvtov ijyayey, the 
clvtov is dependent on jjyayev, and avTov must be supplied with e7rt\a/3. In 
L. 23. 26 €7TL\a(36fi€voL 'ZLjULoova TLva is read by &BCDLX, but the correct gen. 
appears in APrA etc., and there are other variants besides. a v. App. p. 312. 

102 GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC. [§36.2-4. 

with the gen.: 'lyjzrbax (met.) H. 6. 9 rot KpetWova koX e^o/xeva 
o-wT^ptas ('connected with/ 'leading to salvation') and &vt€'x€o-8cu. 
(met.) Mt. 6. 24, L. 16. 13 rov hbs dvOe^erac 'to attach oneself to/ 
'hold to/ Tit. 1. 9 (similar meaning), 1 Th. 5. 14 dvrexeo-Oe tuv 
dorOevw ('to assist'), like av«ri,\afi.pdv€o-eai (met.) L. 1. 54, A. 20. 35 
('to assist/ as in lxx. and Hellenist. Greek ; a but in ol ttjs evepyeo-tas 
dvrtXafjil3av6fjL€voL 1 Tim. 6. 2 'to attain/ 'to partake of). 

3. The gen. with verbs of attaining (cp. dvriXafipdvea-Oat supra 2 
ad fin.) only remains in some isolated instances in the more cultured 
writers. Tvyx civ€tv tivos L. 20. 35 (rvx^v is absent in Latin mss.), 
A. 24. 3, 26. 22, 27. 3, 2 Tim. 2. 10, H. 8. 6, 11. 35, ImT^xdvciv 
Ttvos H. 6. 15, 11. 33, but in R 11. 7 tovto ovk iwervx^v is read by 
all the standard mss. (so ovSev Herm. Mand. ix. 5, but rrjs -irpd^em 
x. 2. 4, cp. on the class, use of the neut. pron. or adj. Kuhner-Gerth 
ii. 3 350, note 9). Acryx^veiv takes the gen. only in appearance in 
L. 1. 9 (rov 6v[jLia<raL = Ov/jl., § 71, 3), the ace. in A. 1. 17, 2 P. 1. 1 
(which is also more frequent in classical Greek than the gen.); 
k\t]povo[jl€iv only the ace. Mt. 5. 5 etc. (Hellenistic, Phrynich. p. 129 ;* 
Attic has the gen.); €<J>iKV€t<r0<u is followed by a preposition 2 C. 
10. 13 £ — Verbs of desiring and striving after: eiueu^tv takes the 
gen. in A. 20. 33, 1 Tim. 3. 1, but the ace. in Mt. 5. 28 in BDE etc. 1 
(avrrjs is hardly attested, the case is wanting in &* and some fathers), 
elsewhere it takes the inf. or is used absolutely ; ope'vecrecu with gen. 
1 Tim, 3. 1, 6. 10, H. 11. 16, as also ojwipeo-ecu ( = t>etp.) 1 Th. 2. 8; 
ermroeetv is transitive as in classical Greek, so also contrary to 
classical usage are iravdv, Sufsdv, § 34, 2. 

4. The genitive after 'to be full/ 'to fill' has been better preserved. 
nijj/n-Xdvcu, Ifj/irnrXdvcu (the former only in Gospels and Acts, the 
latter also in R 15. 24) always take the gen., Mt. 22. io, L. 1. 53 
etc.; irXTjpovv takes a gen., L. 2. 40 7rXrjpovfjLevov cro(j>ias (-ia k c BL, vide 
inf.), A. 2. 28 O.T. (with ace. for v.l. as also in the lxx.), 5. 28, 
13. 52, R 15. 13 (BFGr irXrjpofoprjcrai ev [ev om. FG] irdcrr) X a Ph Y ^ e 
inf.), 15. 14, 2 Tim. 1. 4: and also 4k (partitive, supra 1) Jo. 12. 3 
(B €7r\rj(r0rj) : the pass, takes the dat. R 1. 29, 2 C. 7. 4, cp. § 38, 1, 
Or ev E. 5. 18, but Col. 2„ IO ev avry (Kpio-Tw) ireirXr) pwjmevoL 2 is 
different: cp. also for the active R 15. 13 supra: with the ace. 
(supra § 34, 6) Ph. 1. 11, cp. Col. 1. 9 : yip&v with gen. Mt. 23. 27 
and passim, also Ap. 4. 6, 8 etc. (ibid. 17. 3 yepLovra [yefxov] oVo/zara 
/3\aar<priiJr,ias is a solecism) ; SO ytpiteiv Mc. 15. 36 (TrXrjcras D), Jo. 2. 7, 
6. 13 ?, 3 Ap. 15. 8, with Ik L. 15. 16 v.l. (cp. supra 1), Ap. 8. 5, cp. 
7rXrjpovv supra. Under this head may also be brought jSwmeiv rb 

x So frequently in lxx.: Exod. 20. 17 o$k £iri0vfx'f)<yeis ttjv yvvaiica k.t.X., 
Deut. 5. 21 etc. (Winer), Herm. Vis. i. 1. 4, Sim. ix. 9. 7 (with gen. Sim. ix. 
13. 8). 

2 Probably e fulfilled '= 'perfect,' cp. 4. 12 reXeioi. kclI ireTrXrjpocpoprjfjLevoi (D C E 
al. ireTr\r}pwu,£voi) ev ttolvtI deXrjfjLari rod Qeov. 

3 ''Eiye'ijucrav d&deKa Kocptvovs Kkaafiarcw 4k t&v wevre dprcav k.t.X. ; we might 
correct ko<J>. KXa<x[xdru3v as in L. 9. 17, cp. also ic6<pivov Koirp'oav L. 13. 8 D. 

a b v. App. p. 312. 


aKpov tov SaKTvXov v8aros (v8an **) L. 16. 24, 1 and perhaps ir€pwrcr€V€i.v 
aprcov L. 15. 17 (Lucian, not class.), cp. Xelireo-Oai tlvos infra 9. 

5. Of verbs denoting perception, aia-edveo-eai only appears once 
L. 9. 45) and there with the ace. of the thing (olvto, 'to understand' 
= (Twikvai ; on the class, use oialo-0. n see Kiihner-Gerth ii. 3 360); with 
irw0dv€<r0at Mt. 2. 4 [not D], Jo. 4. 52 [not B] the person is expressed 
by 7rapa, with crvviivai it is nowhere expressed. Thus the only 
remaining verb which takes the gen. is dicoveiv (eircucoveiv 2 C. 6. 2 O.T. 
takes the gen.: also liraKpoao-eai A. 16. 25 ; viraKoveiv takes the dative). 
With this verb the person, whose speech one hears, regularly stands 
in the gen. (as in classical Greek), while the thing, concerning which 
one hears tell, stands in the ace. (as does also the person in a similar 
case, as in E. 4. 2 1 rjKovcrare avrov). It is not an essential difference 
that the person may also be introduced by irapd Jo. 1. 41 and passim 
(classical), and occasionally by diro (unclassical, A. 9. 13, 1 Jo. 1. 5) 
or, with Hebrew phraseology, diro (Sid, 4k) tov o-rSfxaros twos 
L. 22. 71, A. 1. 4 D, 22. 14. But there remains some common 
ground for the use of genitive and accusative. ' To hear a sound ' 
in classical Greek is aKoveiv <f>o)vrjs, /3orjs etc.; but in the N.T. we 
have both &k. </>o>v^s and <po)vrjv, the former being used in St. John's 
Gospel in the sense of 'to obey' (5. 25, 28, 10. 3, 16 etc.), the latter 
in the sense of mere perception (3. 8, 5. 37), while in the Acts and 
the Apocalypse both constructions occur indiscriminately with the 
latter meaning: ace. A. 9. 4, 22. 9, 14, 26. 14 (gen. E), Ap. 1. 10, 
4. 1 etc. (also 2 P. 1. 18); gen. A. 9. 7, 11. 7 (ace. D), 22. 7, 
Ap. 14. 13, 16. 1, 21. 3 (3. 20 'to obey'), as also H. 3. 7, 15 O.T., 
12. 19. 'To hear words' admits of both constructions in classical 
Greek also; the N.T. generally uses the ace, but the gen. in 
Jo. 7. 40, 12. 47, 19. 13 (with v.L, cp. 8). The following are used 
correctly, crTevay/jiov A. 7. 34, crvfAcfruvias koa x°P^ v I*. 15. 25 ; 
the following are doubtful, ttjv o-o<f>iav SaAo/xwi/os Mt. 12. 42, 
L. 11. 31, tt]V /3\ao-cf)7]fjLlav Mt. 26. 65, ttJs ^Aao-^/xtas Mc. 14. 64 
(ace. ADG), tov do-irao-fjiov L. 1. 41 ; Aeyovra(s) Ap. 5. 13 is wrong 
(XakovvTOLs A. 2. 6 D). — It is probably only in appearance that the 
verb takes a double gen. in passages like A. 22. 1 aKovo-aTe juov ttjs 
Trpbs vfjLas diroXoy tas (Jo. 12. 47 al.; Herm. Mand. xii. 5, cp. jjlov t<xs 
ivToXds Sim. ix. 23. 2), since fiov belongs to diroXoyias, the pronoun 
being similarly placed in Jo. 9. 6 kirkxpio-ev olvtov tov tttjXov enl tovs 
ocfrOaXfjLovs. — 'Oo-fypaiveorOai appears nowhere, and ofav is not found 
with a case that more nearly defines it (the gen. with the latter verb 
is of course of a different character to the gen. with the former); but 
on the analogy of ofav, Trvelv, kpmvdv rtvos 'to smell of something 7 
we have in A. 9. 1 Ipm/eW d7T€iXrjs kcu <f>6vov (lxx. Jos. 10. 40 irdv 

kpjwvkov fc^Js). 

6. To remember, to forget. Mi^o-Kco-eai H. 2. 6 O.T., 13. 3) 

together with its aorist and perfect always takes the gen. (on 

1 The lxx. uses airb Levit. 14. 16 (Buttm. 148) ; the classical instances of 
(3&irTe<r0ai nvos (Arat. 650 etc., Buttm. ibid.) are formed on the analogy of 
XotjeaOai twos in Homer. 


1 C. 11. 2 f. see § 34, 3); also p-vinioveuetv for the most part, but the 
ace. in Mt. 16. 9 (D is different), Jo. 15. 20 « (tov Xoyov), D (robs 
Xoyovs) instead of tov Xoyov (gen. in 16. 4 [om. « ca D], 21), 1 Th. 2. 9, 

2 Tim. 2. 8, Ap. 18. 5 (Herm. Vis. i. 3. 3, ii. 1. 3) : with irepl (Ho 
make mention') H. 11. 22 (15 gen.) : classical usage corresponds to 
this, both cases being used ; dvafi.ijj.vfjo-K€iv and -eo-0ai take ace, 
Mc. 14. 72, 1 C. 4. 17, 2 G. 7. 15, H. 10. 32 (class, ace. and more 
often gen.); vn-ojiijJivTJo-Keiv and -eo-Oai take ace. in Jo. 14. 26, 

3 Jo. 10 (2 Tim. 2. 14 ravra v7rofjLijjLvr}o-Ke is different, the ace. being 
that of the inner object), gen. in L. 22. 61, and irzpl 2 P. 1. 12. 
'EmXavGdveo-Oai with gen. only occurs in H. 6. 10, 13. 2 (ace. K*), 16 ; 
similarly IkWO. ibid. 12. 5; eTuXavO. takes ace. in Ph. 3. 14 (as 
occasionally in classical Greek). 

7. There are but few remaining instances of the genitive with 
verbs expressing emotion. The cause of the emotion (after dpycfto-Oai, 
6avfjid^€Lv, iXeelv etc.) never stands in the gen.; the Hebraic verb 
onrXa7xvtt€o-0at=l Aeeti/(from cnrXdyxva = tD^TVl) probably only appears 
to be followed by the gen. of the person pitied in Mt. 18. 27 1 (else- 
where it takes Ittl Tiva or kiri tlvl, irepi tlvos). 'Ave'xecrOai l to bear 
with/ however, takes the gen. throughout in the N.T. as elsewhere, 
vficov Mt. 17. 17 etc. (in class. Greek also the ace, esp. of the thing : 
and so in lxx.). MeXa takes the gen. in 1 C. 9. 9, but DEFG 
12. 4, Jo. 10. 13, 12. 6, 1 P. 5. 7 (not unclassical) ; in A. 18. 17 ovSev 
tovt(ov tw TaXXioivt €fxeXev the construction is probably personal as 
often in classical Greek (ovftev being nominative and tovtwv partitive). 
Still we have 4iri.|i,6X.6fcr0a£ tlvos L. 10. 34 £, 1 Tim. 3. 5 ; ajJieXeiv tlvos 
1 Tim. 4. 14, H. 2. 3, 8. 9 O.T.; irpovoeiareai 1 Tim. 5. 8; |iepi.[xvav 
Mt. 6. 34 with eavrrjs KB etc., ra eavrrjs EK, perhaps kavTfj should 
be read from the Lat. sibi (rd irepl vjxwv Ph. 2. 20, virkp tlvo<$ 
1 0. 12. 25). 

8. The following verbs of ruling (excelling) take the genitive : 
#PX€iv Mc. 10. 42, E. 15. i2 O.T., kv P i€V€lv L. 22. 25, R. 6. 9 etc., 
KctTdKvpieveiv Mt. 20. 25, Mc. 10. 42 etc. (for Kare^ovond^iv ibid, vide 
inf. 10), av06VT€tv 1 Tim. 2. 12, fjyejJLOveveiv, T^rpap\eiv, avdvirareveiv 
L. 2. 2, 3. 1, A. 18. 12 (v.l.), KaTa8wao-T€iJ€iv Ja. 2. 6 K C BC al., but 
vp.ds is read by ***A like KaTa/3pa/3ev€iv nvd etc., § 34, 1 ; on Kparetv 
vide supra 2. But pcuriXefoiv no longer governs the genitive, except 
in Mt. 2. 22 ttJs 'lovSatas kB (the rest read enl rrjs T. as often in the 
lxx.), elsewhere (eirl rrjs yrjs Ap. 5. 10 = ' on earth ') it takes kiti tivol 

L. 1. t>Z^ 19- T 4> 2 7> R- 5. J 4> a ft er Hebrew precedent (?2? M<^?)- 
On rjTrdo-Oai see § 37, 4. Verbs denoting excellence : vircpPdXXav 
nvos E. 3. 19 (so Plat. Gorg. 475 B, the usual classical construction 
is the ace. or absolute, as in N.T. 2 C. 3. 10, 9. 14), {nrgpe'xciv tivos 
Ph. 2. 3, but rivd (also classical) 4. 7. Here also, therefore, we only 
find remnants of the old usage ; especially is this the case with the 
gen. of the thing after verbs of accusing etc., of which the only 

1 ^irXayx^^Bels d£ 6 Ktjptos rod dotiXov iiceivov 'the lord of that slave' ; possibly, 
however (according to the Lewis Syriac), 6 Kijp. r. 8. e/c. (4k. om. B) is merely a 
superfluous expansion. 

§ 36. 8-9.] GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC. 105 

instance which can be adduced is eyKaXeto-dcu o-rdo-ews A. 19. 40, and 
this is contrary to Attic usage (eyKaXetv tlvl tl, but tlvl tlvos in 
Plutarch Aristid. 10), elsewhere ey/c. and Kpcveo-Oat (pass.) take 7repl 
tlvos A. 23. 29, 6 etc. (Attic) ; for the dat. instead of gen. of the 
punishment see § 37, 2. — The gen. of price is still used with 
verbs of buying and selling, thus Mt. 10. 29 do-o-aplov 7rwAetrat 26. 9, 
A. 5. 8 etc.; also crvfjL<fi(DV€cv (to agree) Srjvaplov Mt. 20. 13 (but ck 8t]v. 
tyjv rjfjiepav ibid. 2, 1 as in class. Greek, § 34, 8) ; we have a periphrasis 
for this gen. in dyopdfav Ik Mt. 27. 7, KrdcrOat Ik A. 1. 18; see 
further L. 16. 9 (on the use of ev see § 41, 1) ; a kindred use is dgioOv 
(Karagcovv) tlvos 2 Th. 1. 5, 1 1, 1 Tim. 5. 17, H. 3. 3, 10. 29; but 
'to exchange for' is expressed by dXXdgaL tl evU. 1. 23 (after the 
LXX. Ps. 105. 20), cp. 25 juL€raWdcro~€Lv ev, 26 /xeTaAA. els (unclassical, 
although the gen. with per. is also absent from classical Greek ; in 
Plat. Tim. 19 A /xer. els means 'to bring over to another place 7 ). 

9. Of verbs which contain the idea of separation, the following are 
found with the gen.: cnraWoTpiovv E. 2. 12, 4. 18, onroo-T€p€to-0cu, 
1 Tim. 6. 5, with V.l. aTrecrTpafiixevoyv diro (D*), cp. 2 Tim. 4. 4, 
da-Toxetv 1 Tim. 1. 6 (with 7F€pfc tl 6. 21, 2 Tim. 2. 18), 8ia<j>€p€iv 'to 
differ 7 Mt. 6. 26 etc., kgAvciv Tivd tlvos 'to hinder from 7 (Xenoph. 
Polyb.) A. 27. 43 (elsewhere k. tlvol, k. tl, also after Hebrew example 
KtoXveLv tl diro tlvos L. 6. 29, 'to refuse, 7 as in LXX. Gen. 23 6), 
Xeiirco-Oai 'to lack 7 Ja. 1. 5, 2. 15 (ev fjirjdevL 1. 4 c in no respect 7 ), cp. 
irepLO-creveLV tlvos, SUpra 4, ira/ueo-Oai 1 R 4. I irerravTaL dfiapTLas (ibid. 
3. IO (XT. iraveLV tlvol diro ; dvairavecrOaL £k as in class. Greek Ap. 14. 
13, KOLTeiravo-ev [intrans.] dirb H. 4. 4 O.T., 10) dpyeo-OaL tlvos does not 
occur, ixrrepeiv 'to be inferior to 7 (cp. vo-Tepos) 2 C. 11. 5, 12. 11: 'to 
lack' L. 22. 35 : in the same sense vo-Tepelo-QaL B,. 3. 23 (with ev 
1 C. 1. 7, cp. supra XeLireo-OaL : vo-TepeLv dirb 'to remain alienated 

from' = 'to lose' H. 12. 15 [LXX. Eccl. 6. 2], cp. dvvcrTepiqTOS a7ro 
Herm. Mand. ix. 4); cnrexeo-Gcu 'to abstain 7 A. 15. 29, 1 Tim. 4. 3, 

1 P. 2. 11 (in A. 15. 20 the reading varies between the simple gen. 
and diro; with diro 1 Th. 4. 3, 5. 22) : airix eiv ' to be distant 7 L. 7. 6 
K*D (v.l. with (xtto, as in 24. 13 etc.)-" xpfl»v Mt. 6. 32, L. 11. 8 
(oow, oo-ov k c DE al.), 12. 30, E. 16. 2, 2 C. 3. 1. To these may be 
added 8ao-0at tlvos ' to ask 7 Mt. 9. 38, Luke passim (for which wpos 
TLva is used in A. 8. 24, cp. ei>xo/zou 717)09 2 C. 13. 7, A.eya> irpbs), 

2 0. 8. 4, G. 4. 12 ; Trpoo-Scto-Gcu 'to need' only in A. 17. 25. Quite 
peculiar is the use of the gen. in ov /3pa8vveL KvpLos ttjs €7rayyeAtas 
2 P. 3. 9, 'hesitates and refrains from accomplishing it. 7 But in 
other cases separation is expressed by diro or !£ (classical Greek uses 
the simple gen. as well) : with yoipltjELv, XveLv, XvTpovv, eXevOepovv, 
pvecrQaL, cr(p£uv, Ka6api£eLV, XoveLV ; with |X€0i(rrdvai L. 16. 4 there are 

1 Unless this e/c has a distributive meaning, as in Attic inscriptions (Meister- 
hans' Grammar of Attic Inscriptions, p. 173. 2) ; KpidQv ... irpadeKT&v 4k rpi&v 
dpaxfJ-uv rbv pLedijupov gkcujtov, where an apparently irregular ace. is added in the 
same way as in Mt. rty rtfiepav. The same inscr. has elsewhere : irpadhruv ££ 
dpaxp<&v rod juedijupov eK&crrov ; of course e£ !£ could not well be said. In an- 
other instance : e£ 6/crcb dfioh&v rbv ararijpa, the ace. likewise has no governing 
verb ('eight oboli being reckoned for each stater '). a v. App. p. 31'J. 

io 6 GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC. [§ 36. 9-11. 

variant readings (l/c rrjs ot/covo/uas «BD, LX with airh, APE, al. 
with the simple gen.). 1 

10. The following compound verbs take the gen. on the strength 
of the preposition : kKiri-KTe.iv in metaphorical sense (not in the literal) 
G. 5. 4, 2 P. 3. 17 ; the remaining instances are all compounds of 
kcito, (with the meaning ' against ' or ' down over ' ; on the other 
hand, with the meaning 'down,' they take the ace, § 34, 1) : Kara- 
yeA6u> Mt. 9. 24 (D* avTov), Mc. 5. 40, L. 8. 53 ; Karayiv&crKeiv 
1 Jo. 3. 20 f. (KaraBiKafav tlvos is classical, in the N.T. it only takes 
the ace, Mt. 12. 7, also Ja. 5. 6); KaraKavxao-Qai 'to boast oneself 
against' R. 11. 18, Ja. 2. 13 (KaraKplveiv always takes the ace; in 
Attic tlvos); KaraXaXetv Ja. 4. 11, 1 P. 2. 12 (Clem. Horn. xvi. 8, 
xix. 7 also has KaTaXeyeLv tlvos 'to revile'); KaTafiapTvpelv Mt. 26. 62 
etc.; KaravapKav, a Pauline word, 'to be burdensome to' 2 C. 11. 8, 
12. 13; Karaa-Tpr^viav 'to wax wanton against' 1 Tim. 5. 11 ; Kara- 
$povelv Mt. 6. 24 etc.; Karax^v 'to pour over' takes the gen. in 
Mc. 14. 3 according to tfBC al., other mss. have Kara or kiri with 
gen.: in Mt. 26. 7 it takes hri tlvos or eiri tl ; Kare^ovo-id^etv (cp. 
supra 8) Mt. 20. 25 = Mc. 10. 42 ; Kar^yopetv passim. 

1 1 . The use of the gen. as the complement of adjectives and adverbs 
is also, as contrasted with classical usage, very limited. The follow- 
ing instances occur: kolvwvos, o-vyKOLv. tlvos (gen. of the thing) 2 C. 1. 7, 
1 P. 5. 1, E-. 11. 17 (also with the gen. of the person, e the companion 
of someone,' H. 10. ^^ also 1 C. 10. 18, 20; beside which we have 
kolvwvoI tw 2t/xwvt L. 5. io [gen. D], cp. § 37, 3 and kolv(dv£lv, supra 1); 
[not kolvos twos, nor l8los', Clem. Cor. i. 7. 7 has aXXoTpioi tov 6eov\; 
fxeToxos H. 3. 1, 14, 6. 4, 12. 8 ( = 'a companion of someone' 1. 9 O.T.; 
cp. E. 5. 7 V) ; <rvfjL[jLop<j)os ttjs €lk6vos E,. 8. 29, i.e. 'a bearer of the 
image,' cp. § 37, 6 for the dat. (in o-wepyos tlvos and similar cases 
with a personal gen. the adjective has become a substantive, cp. 
ibid.); £e'vos tlvos 'estranged from a thing,' E. 2. 12 (Plat. Apol. 17 D; 
with dat. Clem. Cor. i. 1. 1) ; dimpao-Tos kolkuv 'untempted by, 7 
Ja. 1. 13 (so in class. G-k. direipaTos tlvos, ayevo-Tos kolkuv etc., Kiihner- 
Gerth ii. 3 p. 401 f.); in dvop.os Oeov - gwo^os Xpto-roG 1 C. 9. 21 the 
gen. is dependent on vojxos (a peculiar and bold use, cp § 28, 6) ; but 
ao-7TLXos is followed by diro (Ik CP) Ja. 1. 27, as also aOQos Mt. 27. 24, 
Kadapos A. 20. 26 (DemostL 59. 78), cp. KaOapl^Lv airo supra 9; 
/xeo-Tos tlvos Mt. 23. 28 etc., ttXtjptjs L. 4. 1 etc. (kzvos and JvSe^s are 
never found with gen., k. d™ Herm. Mand. v. 7, xi. 4), cp. ' to fill ' 
supra 4 ; djtos, dvd|ios Mt. 3. 8, 1 C. 6. 2, etc., cp. gen. of price 
supra 8; ifvoxos OavaTOV Mt. 26. 66, Mc. 14. 64, alaoviov a/ma pTTjfjLOLTOs 
(afjLapTLas, KpLo-eo)s) Mc. 3. 29, etc. (as well as the use with the dat., 
modelled on kvkyeo-Qai tlvl, Mt. 5. 21 f., which is the commoner 
classical construction ; ibid. 2 2 we also have 'ivoxos els ttjv ykewav) ; 
6p.oios with gen. only in Jo. 8. 55 nCLX v/jlcov, but vpXv is read by 
ABD etc., cp. 9. 9, 1 Jo. 3. 2 and elsewhere in N.T. (the gen. is also 
rare in class. Gk. ; Chrys. and Epiph. read in Mt. 5. 45 the gloss opioioi 
tov TraTpbs vpbojv for viol) ; aKoXovOa tovt(ov Herm. Mand. viii. 4. 10 

1 The reading in A. 19. 27 KaOcupe'icr dai ttjs fieya\eL6r7]Tos (KABE), instead of 
i] jULeyaXeidTrjs avrTjs or avrrjs i] jj.ey. , seems to be impossible. 

§ 3 6. 11-12.] GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC. 10 ? 

(classical). Adverbs: lyyfc with gen. Jo. 11. 18, R. 10. 8 O.T., 
H. 6. 8, 8. 13 etc., with dat. (rarely in classical, more often in late 
Greek) only A. 9. 38 eyybs ovo-rjs rrjs Av88as rfj 'loTnry (therefore 
with good reason), 27. 8 (the text of the passage is not quite certain); 
irX.T]criov Jo. 4. 5, cp. L. 10. 29, 36 and 6 ttXyjo-lov (tov Mt. 5. 43 etc.; 
«vtos L. 17. 2 1, 1 Iktos 1 C. 6. 18 etc.; 2£o> Mt. 21. 39 etc. (eo-w tt}s cujA?}? 
Mc. 15. 16, v.l. [DP] €<xo) cas rr]v avkrjv: the former text, however, 
means 'again into the palace [see verse 1] within,' and so the gen. 
is partitive : there are similar variants in 14. 54; 2 C. 4. 16 6 ccro> 
■fjfi&v sc. avOpayn-os should be taken like the preceding 6 !£a> fjfi&v a. in 
the sense of ' our ' etc.) ; lirdvco Mt. 5. 14 etc., {nrepdvw E. 4. 10, {rn-oK&Tw 
Mc. 6. 1 1 etc. (not avco, kolto)); '4\nrpocrQev Mt. 5. 16 etc., omo-Oev Mt. 15. 23, 
L. 23. 26, ottO™ Mt. 3. 11 etc.; ire'pav Mt. 4. 25 etc.; [Iir^iva A. 7. 43 
is a wrong reading] ; in addition to these x^P^ P e XP l ^ etc -? see 
§ 40, 6 ff. Prepositions. — The class of adj. in -ikos, formed from verbs 
and taking the gen., which is so large in Attic Greek (irapao-Kevao-TiKos 
twos and the like, Kiihner-Gerth ii. 3 p. 371) is almost entirely absent 
(the only ex. is H. 4. 12 k/htakos evOvfirjcreow). We occasionally find 
verbal adjectives in -tos (in the sense of a perf. part, pass.) taking 
the gen., as also indeed the perf. part. pass, in its ordinary form, 
still this is due to the participle becoming a sort of substantive. 
Like a7roo-ToAos 'Irjo-ov ( = 6V airka-rakKev 'Irjcrovs) one may also say 
IkAcktoa Oeov R. 8. ^2>-> Mt. 24. 31 etc.; dya7rrjTol Oeov R,. 1. 7; cp. 
6 ayairr^ros pov 16. 5 etc., ot ayarnqrol rjfJLWV A. 15. 25 (cp. Attic o 
epufjievos tavos) ; 8l8olktoI Oeov Jo. 6. 45 O.T., Cp. 1 C. 2. 13 ovk ev 
SiSaKTois <xv0p(i)7TLvr]S o~ocj>ias Aoyots, dXX' ev SaScxktoas TrvevfiaTOS, where, 
if Aoyots be not spurious, 8l8<lkt6s has kept its adjectival character 
(cp. Soph. EL 343 airavTa yap croi ra/xa vovOeTrjjxara Ketvrjs SaoWtci, 
Odyss. p 386 kXtjtoI /SpoT&v) ; evXoyrj/mevoL tov irarpos Mt. 25. 34 ; 
yevvrjrol yvvatKcov Mt. 11. II, L. 7. 28 (LXX. Job 14. 1); in kXtjtol 
'Ir]o-ov, however, in R. 1. 6 the gen. is rather a gen. of the possessor, 
;since the Person who gives the call is God rather than Jesus 
(Winer, § 30, 4). 2 A peculiar use is to efflicrjjLevov (D eOos) tov vojaov 
L. 2. 27. 

12. The genitive of comparison with the comparative (and with 
what remains of the superlative, cp. § 11, 3 ff.) is found as in the 
classical language ; and along with it (though this is much the rarer 
construction of the two, as it is in the earlier language) 3 is used the 
analytical expression with rj, particularly when the gen. could not 
well be employed or would not be sufficiently explicit (e.g. with an 
adj., <piXrj8ovoi piaXXov rj <j>iXo6eoi 2 Tim. 3. 4, with a statement of time 
E. 13. 11, with an infinitive Mt. 19. 24, A. 20. 35 etc., with a gen. 
v/Awv fjbaXXov rj tov Oeov A. 4. 1 9, also with a dat. as in Mt. 10. 15, 

- * But in Mt. 23. 25 to f-crcddev tov TroTTjpiov, 26 to ivTos r. ir.-rb €kt6s [auTov] the 
genitive denotes the whole, as in L. 11. 39. 

2 The gen. in 5eo~/juos tov Xpco-rov E. 3. 1 (Paul has similar phrases elsewhere) 
is also equivalent to a gen. with a substantive,, see on this phrase Winer § 30, 
2, Buttm. p. 147 (E. 4. 1 has 6 8i<rfju.os ev Kvptcp). ' 6 v. App. p. 329. 

IQ 8 GENITIVE WITH VERBS, ETC. [§36. 12-13. 

A. 5. 29); it is seldom found without some such occasion for it 
(Jo. 3. 19 f)ydirrjcrav jJidXXov to <r kotos rj to c£ws, 4. I irXelovas /JLaOrjTas 
TTotet rj Twav^s 1 Jo. 4. 4, 1 C. 14. 5). 1 In addition to this periphrasis 
there is the periphrasis by means of a preposition : irapd nva (cp. 
classical passages like Thuc. i. 23. 3, which however are not entirely 
similar, so that the prep, could not be replaced by r] ; 2 but in 
modern Greek irapd or diro is the regular means of expressing com- 
parison) L. 3. 13 irXeov irapd to ScareTay/xevov (18. 14 fidXXov irap* 
6K€tvov I), without /x. nBL, other mss. have the corrupt reading r] ydp 
eKeivos), Hebr. passim, 1. 4 8tac[>op(i>Tepov Trap avTOvs, 3. 3, 9. 23, 
11. 4, 12. 24, Herm. Vis. iii. 12. 1, Sim. ix. 18. 2 ( = more than, 
without a comparative, § 43, 4) ; and Mp nva (as in the case of 
irapd, classical Greek only shows the beginnings of this use), L. 16. 8 
<f)povi/JLCJT€poL virep, Jo. 12. 43 jxaXXov virep {fjirep ABD al. is corrupt) 
H. 4. 12, A. 20. 35 v.l. (Herm. Mand. v. 6 has virep with the elative; 
with comparative in elative sense virep irdo-av apbapriav dvofxwTepovs 
Barn. 5. 9; also lxx. e.g. Judges 11. 25, see Winer). The word 
' than ' is omitted after irXeiuv and eXdo-aruv before numerical state- 
ments (in Attic irXeiv e^aKoa-iovs Aristoph. Av. 1251 ; Lobeck Phryn. 
410 f. ; 3 Lat. plus quingentos) : A. 4. 22 eriov irXeioviov TecrcrepaKovTa, 
23. 13, 21, 24. 11, 25. 6, 1 Tim. 5. 9 XVP a FQ eAarrov eTOJV e^rjKovTa'^ 
also L. 9. 13 according to K* ovk eio-lv r)fuv irXeioves (other readings 
are irXetov rj, irXeov r), with stereotyped irXeov, cp. Kiihner ii. 2 847 f.) 
dpToi irevTe, Mt. 26. 53 irXeiovs (tf°AC al.; 7rAetco K*BD) ScoSe/ccc 
(tfBDL; rj 8. AO al.) Xeyiwas (k c BD al; -iw K*AC al.) dyyeXuv ; 
instead of irXetwv we also have en-dyc* (vulgar) Mc. 14. 5 irpadrjvai 
eirdva) 8rjvapL(ov TpLaKOcrLWV, 1 C. 15. 6 eirdva) irevTaKOorto is d8eXcj)0LS. — 
Instances of looser employment of the genitive : Mt. 5. 20 edv fir) 
Trepiorcrevo-r) r) 8n<aiocrvvrj v/jlwv irXeiov t&v ... <&apLorai(t)v ( = than that 
of the Ph., yours is more in comparison with the Ph.); Jo. 5. 36 eyo> 
€^o) rrjv [xapTvpiOLv /^'fco tov 'ludvov, where it is ambiguous whether 
the meaning is 'than John had/ or 'than that given by John' : in 
the latter sense, however, /xet£co rj (B al. read /xet£wy) tov T. would be 
better, Hepccro-os, particularly now that irepio-cros and -oVepos have 
come to be used for irXeiuv (§11, 4), takes the gen.: Mt. 5. 37 to 
irepicro-ov tovtcdv, E. 3. 20 virepeKireptcro-ov <Sv k.t.A. : this, however, is 
also an old usage. — A stereotyped use of the neut. irdvTcov to intensify 
the superlative is commonly assumed in Me. 12. 28 izoia £o~t\v evToXr) 
irpwTr) irdvTwv (iracr^v is only read by M*al.). a 

13. Local and temporal genitive. There are a few remains of a 
local gen.: L. 5. 19 iroias (sc. 68ov, 'by which way') elcreveyKcocnv, 

1 In 1 Tim. 1. 4 e/c^r^cets irapexovcnv fiSXKov 7} olKodo/xiav deov the gen. would 
not have been in place, especially as ^SXKov ij virtually has in this passage the 
force of a negative. 

2 For precise details on irapa, see Schwab ii. 108 f., 152 f., on virip 109 f., on 
prepositions generally 149 if. 

3 For details see Schwab 84 ff. 

4 The next word is yeyovvla, which some commentators attach to the follow- 
ing epos dvdpbs yvvq ; still even if it is connected with the preceding words, the 
usage remains the same, in spite of the Attic elKoaiv erij yeyovdos, cp. § 34, 8. 

a v. App. p. 312. 

§ 36. 13. § 37- 1.] DA TIVE. 109 

19. 4 eKeivrjs (D €K€ivt]) rj/xeXXev Scepx^Oai, which are incorrect, since 
the gen. in classical Greek denotes the whole area within which 
something goes on, just as the corresponding temporal gen. denotes 
the whole period of time within which something happens. 1 ^Of 
this temporal use the N.T. has the following examples : x €i ^ vo ^ 
Mt. 24. 2o = Mc. 13. 18 ' during the winter': rjfiepa* Ap. 21. 25 
' during the day/ ' in the day/ with v.l. ^ /cat wktos, cp. Mc. 5. 5, 
L. 18. 7, A. 9. 24 etc. 'in the day as well as by night/ beside which 
we have vvkto. /cat faepav < all ^day and night long/ § 34, 8 ^(but 
Jo. 11. 9 edv Tts irepiTrarrj ev rrj rjfxepa 'by day/ cp. § 38. 4 ; 81a tyjs 
fjfiepas 'in the course of this day/ L. 9. 37 D) : wktos Mt. 2. 14 etc., 
rfjs v. L. 2. 8 ('in this night 7 ), for which we have Sid wktos A. 5. 19 
(v.l. Std r. v.), 16. 9, 17. 10, 23. 31, like per nodem ; reo-crepaKovra 
rjfiepiov D* A. 1. 3 for 6Y rjfji. rearer, of tfB etc. and with equivalent 
sense ('during' i.e. 'at intervals in that time/ see § 42, 1); rjpepas 
fjbco-rjs A. 26. 13, fJLecrrjS wktos Mt. 25. 6, fJLecrovvKTiov, dXeKTopocfrutvias 

Mc. 13. 35 (fjLeo-ovvKTLov kBC al., cp. § 34, 8), opOpov fiaOem L. 24. 1 
(all these denoting a space of time, 'the middle part of the day ' etc., 
not 'a moment of time'), rov Xolttov (sc. xp^ vov ) &• 6. 17, E. 6. 10 
»*AB 'henceforth' (classical; a stereotyped phrase). With an 
adverb: Sts to-G o-a/S/Sdrov L. 18. 12 ('twice in the week'), airag rov 
evLavrov H. 9. 7, as in classical Greek. (§ 35, 4). 

§ 37- DATIVE. 

1. In the use of the Greek dative a distinction must be made 
between the pure dative, which expresses the person more remotely 
concerned, the instrumental dative (and dative of accompaniment), 
and, thirdly, the local dative. Still this triple division cannot be 
applied with absolute clearness and certainty to all the existing 
usages. The functions of this case were in large measure, more so 
than those of the accusative and genitive, usurped by different 
prepositions, particularly ev and els; connected with this and with 
the disappearance of the use of the dative after prepositions, is the 
subsequent loss of the dative in modern Greek and the substitution 
for it of els with the accusative. In the N.T., however, the case is 
still very largely employed. 

On the use of the dative as the necessary complement of the verb 
the following points may be noted. To give, to promise etc.: there 
is hardly any tendency to supplant the dat. (SeSop.evov ev... , § 41, 2 ; 
Herm. Vis. i. 4. 8 els to Brjpiov I/jlclvtov e8o)Ka ; iii. 11. 3 7rape8(x>Kare 
eavrovs els rds aK-qSias is different, where els expresses the result, as 
in the N.T., E. 1. 24 etc. [although the dat. is found beside els in 
E. 4. 19]; 7rapaS. els vweSpLa Mt. 10. 17 etc. is also justifiable). To 
do good etc., to be profitable, to injure: dat. and ace. see § 34, 1 and 4; 

1 In classical Greek these must have been expressed by iroia, eKeivr), cp. 
Xenoph. Anab. iii. 4. 37 x w P^ 0V vnepSeliiov, fj g/jteWov ol"IHX\.7)ves irapievai (therefore 
D is right in 19. 4, but in the other passage the whole of the evidence supports 
the gen. ). 

IIO DATIVE. t§37.1. 

iv is also used in place of the dat, ibid. 4 : <rvjj.<|>€p€iv always takes the 
dat., Mt. 5. 29 etc. To Serve (SovXeveLv XaTpeveLV 8l<xkov€lv V7r^p €T€ t V \ 
always takes the dat.; also SovXovv 'to make a servant' 1 C. 9. 19 ; 
on SovXovo-dcu pass, vide infra 4 ; Trpoo-KweZv etc. take dat. and. ace. 
§ 34, 1 ; irpoo-K. Zvuttlov tlvos L. 4. 7, Ap. 15. 4 is Hebraic, § 40, 7 ; 
so also dp€o-K€cv (elsewhere with tlvl, like dpKelv and the adjectives 

dpecrTos, dpKeros, Ikolvos etc.) €V(x>7Ti6v tlvos A. 6. 5, apeo-Tos ivCOTT. Til/O? 

1 Jo. 3. 22. To show, to reveal take dat. always (<f>aiv€iv 'to give 
light' Ap. 21. 23 [with iv k c ], kiri<\>aivziv L. 1. 79), as also 'to seem 7 
(8ok€lv, (fratvecrOat) ; on <f>avepovv kv and the like see § 41, 2. To say to 
is expressed, as in classical Greek, by tlvl or irpos tlvol ; evx^Qai takes 
dat. A. 26. 29, and wpos nva 2 C. 13. 7, «rrpoo-evx ea " 9aL dat. only, Mt. 6. 6, 

1 0. 11. 13. To write, to announce take dat.; more striking and 
isolated cases of the dat. with verbs of speaking are : d/iro\o7€io-8cu tw 
S^/xo) A. 19. 33, so 2 G. 12. 19 (Lucian, Plut.) 'before or in the 
presence of anyone,' atrorda-crearBai 'to say farewell' Mc. 6. 46 etc. 
(Hellenistic, Phryn. Lob. 23 f.); Kavxao-9at 'to boast of before' 

2 C. 7. 14, 9. 2 ; 6}jLo\o7€tv tlvl H. 13. 15, tw ovopaTL avrov 'to praise/ 
like igopoXoyeio-Oac, dvOopoX., R. 14. II O.T., Mt. 11. 25, L. 2. 38, 
10. 21 (so also alveire to> OeQ Ap. 19. 5, like lxx. Jerem. 20. 13 etc., 
Buttm. 153 note); 'to confess before anyone,' 'to anyone 'A. 24. 14, 
Mt. 7. 23 ( = 'to promise' A. 7. 17, with v.l. tipoo-ev and ^r]yy e lx aT ' 
D ; Mt. 14. 7 ; on opoX. iv see § 41, 2); ^vSeo-Gat Tti/t A. 5. 4 (LXX.; ibid. 3 
rti/a 'to deceive,' as in classical Greek). To blame etc.: i-n-iTLpRv, 
eyKaXeiv take dat. (ey/c. Kara tlvos K,. 8. 33), KarapdcrOaL and pepefre- 
o-Oai take the dat. as a doubtful v.l., § 34, 2 ; ibid, on irapaivelv 
evayyeXi£ecr9cu ; iTTLTacrcreiv irpocrrdo-creiv 8iao-TeXXecr9ai etc. take dat. * 
also KeX€veiv a ~Ev. Petr. 47. 49, Herm. Sim. viii. 2. 8. — n€t0 € <r0at, 
viroLKoveiv, awio-reiv, direiQtiv take the usual dat. ; but ireiroiOevcu ' to 
trust in' besides the dat. (as in Ph. 1. 14) more often takes 4V tlvi, 
67T6 tlvl or tlvol, 6t§ Ttvct, and so iriorT€v€Lv : with tlvl passim, even in 
the sense 'to believe in,' as in A. 5. 14, 18. 8^ Kvploy; with prep, 
'to believe in ' : 'iv tlvi only in Mc. 1. 15 7tlo-t6V€T€ iv tco evayyeXiw, 1 
hri tlvl 1 Tim. 1. 16, L. 24. 25 (ttlo-t. om. D), Mt. 27. 42 EF al. 
(ttBL iir' avTov, AD avTco), R. 9. 33 al. O.T., iirC tlvol A. 9. 42 etc., 
€65 TLva, els to ovopd tlvos etc., which is the commonest construction. 
Cp. Buttmann, p. 150 £ 2 — To be angry (also ipftpLpdcrOou Mt. 9. 30 
etc.; peTpL07ra$€Lv tlvl H. 5. 2 ; on pbipfao-QaL, § 34. 2), to envy take 
the usual dat.; also to thank, to owe etc. — The adjectives belonging 
to these verbs are subjoined : oxfieXtpLos Tit. 3. 8 (o-vp,<f> pov or 
<rvp<f>ipov is used substantially with a gen., 1 G. 7. 35, 10. ^^; 
o-ixiTrjpLos tlvl Tit. 2. n), dpeo-Tos dpKtTos Ikolvos vide supra ; <f>avep6s 
A. 7. 13, 1 Tim. 4. 15 (v.l. with iv), i^avris A. 10. 40, E. 10. 20 

O.T., V7T7]K00S A. 7. 39, 7TLCTTOS T(£ KVpl(j) A. 16. 1 5, Cp. H. 3. 2 

1 Jo. 3. 15 is different, where if h aury (B) is correct it must be taken in 
connection with 'ixxi faty. 

2 'E\7ri^*eti> tlvl ' to hope in anyone ' (instead of eirl tlvol or tlvl or el's T Lva ; rj 
tijxv e\iri(xas Thuc. 3. 97) occurs only in Mt. 12. 21 in a quotation from Is. 42. 
4, where LXX. has eirl r£ ; eV rep is read by D al. ; cp. § 5, 2, note 3. 

"v. App. p. 312. 

§37-1-3.] DATIVE, III 

(1 P. 1. 21 els Beov AB, but n c al. read irianevovra^ ; generally- 
absolute), diraOrjs A. 26. 19 etc. (airicrros absolute), evavTios Mc. 6. 48 
etc. (with 7r/oos rt A. 26. 9) ; to these may be added the substantive 
ofaiier-qs dpi tlvl R. 1. 14, 8. 12 (with gen. 15. 27 etc.). 

2. The dative is used in a foos^r manner (as in classical Greek) with 
various verbs to denote the person whose interest is affected (dativus 
commodi et incommodi). Mapn>p€iv tlvl 'for anyone' L. 4. 22 etc., 
also 'against anyone' Mt. 23. 31 /xap-rvpetTe eavTois. ['AvobrXiipoih-cu 
avrots (D al. Itt' avTOts) r) irpo^Teia Mt. 13. 14, cp. L. 18. 31 (D has 
?rept with gen.). "EKpiva ifxavTO) tovto 2 C. 2. i 'for myself,' cp. 
Herm. Mand. xii. 4. 6 creavTOJ KeKpiKas tov p,r) SvvacrOai tcls ivToXds 
tolvtols cf>vXaxOrjvai. Also pr) p.€pip.vaTe Trj i^vxfj vpuv-TCp crcu/xaTt 
vfi&v Mt. 6. 25 (L. 12. 22), 'for the life — for the body' (other con- 
structions in § 36, 7) ; and most probably Ap. 8. 4 tclls Trpoo-evxats, 
cp. 3 (Winer, § 31, 6). The peculiar Pauline employment of the 
dat. in the following passages is not quite the same as in the 
last instances : R 6. 10 o aTreOavev, Trj ajjiapTia direOavev, o Se 
CVi CjJ T< ? ^ €< ?j ^ nen m verse II veKpovs jjl€V Trj a/x., faWas Se 
tw dew, 14. 7 f. ov8els eavTO) (rj, koll ovSels eavTCo diroOvrjcrKei* lav 
T€ yap £w/jl€V, tw Kvpiw (wp-ei/, edv T€ aTToOvrjcrKCOfiev, to} k. diro- 
Ovrjo-KOfxev, from which the conclusion is drawn that in every 
case tov KvpLov io-fjLev; cp. further 6. 2, 7. 4 WavaTudrjTe tw 
vopLU) — els to yeveoSaL upas erepto k.t.A., 2 C. 5. 15, G-. 2. 19^ 
1 P. 2. 24; the dative therefore expresses the possessor, cp» 
the dat. with yiveo-Bai infra 3. Further instances: 2 C. 5. 13 
€tVe yap e^ecrTrj/jLev, Beep ('it concerns God alone'), etre o-axfipovovpev, 
vfjiiv ('in your interest') : R. 14. 4 tw t6Yo> Kvpito crTrjKei r) 7TL7rTei, 6 o 
cf)pov(x)V Trjv rjpepav Kvpiw <£>povei' koll 6 earBiuv Kvpico earOiei' evx^pLorTel 
ydp tw Beep k.t.X. i.e. eating etc. is a matter in which God is con- 
cerned, which takes place for Him (for His honour). Cp. also the 
O.T. quotation ibid. 11 ipol Kapif/eL irav yoVu, with which may be 
connected the use of irpoa-Kweiv tlvl (§ 34, 1). A peculiar use is 
that in Mc. 10. 33 KdTaKpLvovo-iv avTov BavaTO) (-ov D*) = Mt. 20. 18 
(here read by CD al., els OdvaTov », B omits the noun), according to 
Winer, § 31, 1 = 'to sentence to death,' cp. instances from late writers 
like Diod. Sic. in Lob. Phryn. 475, 2 P. 2. 6 (o-Tavpoy Clem. Horn. 
Epit. i. 145) ; it may be influenced by the analogy of BavaTu fypiovv 
and the Latin cajpite damnare. 

3. The dat. with eTvai, yiveo-Bai (v-rrapx^v in Acts and 2 P. 1. 8) 
denotes the possessor, so that it corresponds to ' to have ' or ' get ' 
with an altered construction : ovk rjv avTois tottos ' they had no 
room' L. 2. 7, eyiveTo irdo-rj \pvxy <f>6ftos 'all experienced and 
continued to feel a fright ' A. 2. 43, a common construction, as also 
in classical Greek, used where the possessor is previously known and 
the emphasis is laid not on him but on the thing which falls to his 
lot (on the Other hand with a gen. aim; r) OLKLa SajAcparovs exrTLV 
'the house [which is previously known] belongs to Socrates,' 
cp. R^ 14. 8 etc.) ; but we also have R. 7. 3 edv yevryraL dvdpl Irepo), 
4 els to yevea-Oai vfias eTepoy (a Hebraism, modelled on UPtfp F^, 

112 DATIVE. [§37-3-4. 

LXX. Lev. 22. 12 etc.), A. 2. 39 vjjllv Icttlv r) kirayytXia, due no doubt 
to eTrayyeXXecrdal tlvl, L. 12. 20 a yjToifJLao-as, tlvl kvTcu (sc. rjTOLfJLa- 
xTfxeva ?, but D has TtVos). Correctly in A. 21. 23 eto-6i/ ^tV 8<o8eKa 
avSpes 'we have here 7 ; Mt. 19. 27 tl ecrrac r)fuv. On the model of 
€(ttlv crvvrjOeia vpXv Jo c 18. 39 we have also Kara to elcoObs avra) 
L. 4. 16 (aw$ om. D), A. 17. 2 (6 ILiSAos D) I 1 Of time: A. 24. n 
ov irXetovs eicrt />tot ^/xepat ScoSe/ca a<£' 17s. Also with the meaning ' to 
happen' Mt. 16. 22 ov fxr) eo-rai crot tovto, L. 1. 45, cp. the dat. with 
<rv}jL/3aLveL Mc. 10. 32 etc., and with ellipse of the verb L. 1. 43 irodev 
/xot tovto. The opposite meaning appears in ev 0-01 AetVet L. 18. 22, 
Tit. 3. 12 (Polyb. 10, 18, 8), cp. the use with vo-Tepelv, a v.l. in 
Mc. 10. 21, § 34, 1. — The relation expressed is different, if Icrr/ with 
the dat. only forms a part of the predicate : the idea of possession 
is then at any rate not in all cases apparent. A. 9. 15 o~K€vo<$ 1/cAoy^s 
ecrrt fxoi ovtos means 'I have in him' etc.; but 1 C. 1. 180 Xoyos tov 
o~Tavpov tols i*€v dTroWvfjLevoLs /jLOjpca €o~tlv— ' is folly to them,' ' passes 
for folly with them/ cp. 2 C 14 f., Mt. 18. 17 ; also with the meaning 
'it redounds to his' etc., 1 0. 11. 14 f. art/xta avrw Io-tl ( = <he gets 
dishonour therefrom'), whereas 14. 22 els cn^etoV elo-iv tols k.t.X. 
means 'are there for,' 'serve for' (cp. Ja. 5. 3). — With adjectives: 
KaXov o-ol eo-Tiv 'is good for thee' Mt. 18. 8 etc. ( = 'thou derivest 
profit therefrom'), A. 19, 31 ovt€<s avrco $>lXol 'who had Paul for a 
friend ' (<j>iXos in itself as a substantive regularly takes the gen. : ovk 
€t <j>lXos tov Kaco-apos Jo. 19. 12 ; similarly e^Opos), rjo-av kolvcovoI to) 
HijULiovL L. 5. 10, ' S. had them for partners ' (D rjo-av 8e k. clvtov, cp. 
H. 10. 33). With an adverb: So-lojs . . . vfilv iyevrjOrjfjiev 1 Th. 2. 10 
(§76, 1); oval (jLol eo-TLv 1. C. 9. 16, elsewhere frequently oval tlvl 
without a verb, Mt. 11. 21 etc.: in the Apocalypse it takes an ace. 
in 8. 13 kB, 12. 12 kACP, cp. Latin vae me and mihi; Buttm. p. 134. 
— The following are equivalent to datives with etvaL : 1 0. 7, 28 
BXi^iv tyj crapKt ('for the flesh'; with kv D*FGc) tgovo-Lv; 2. 0. 2 13 
ovk €o-xv Ka &vecriv tw irvevpLaTi /jlov (with ellipse of the verb G-. 5„ 13) ; 
in conjunction with another dat. 2 C. 12. 7 iSoOrj jjlol o~KoXo\p ttj 
u-apKL) further instances occur with evplo-KeLv, Mt. 11. 29 evpr)o-eTe 
avajravo-Lv reus -tyvyals vpLiov, R. 7. 10, 21, 2 0. 12. 20, Ap 20. 11 ; 
with Kiveiv crTdo-eis A. 24. 5 ; with ayopafav dypbv els Ta<prjv Mt. 27. 7 
(as one might say Ivtlv evTavOa Ta^r) tols £evoL$) ; with an adjective, 
jmovoyevrjs rfj jultjt p i L. 7. 12 (cp. LXX. Win. § 31, 3). 

4. Not far removed from the use of the dat. with etvaL is its use 
with the perfect passive — hro with a gen,: irkirpaKTai /xot tovto 'I 
have done this' ; so in 1ST. T. L. 23. 1 5.2 The other N.T. instances, 
however, of the dat. with passive verbs are connected with the 
particular sense in which the verb is used. In classical Greek we 
have ^aiveo-Oai tivl 'to appear' corresponding to <f>alveLv tlvl 'to 
shine,' 'give light' (supra 1), and so m the N.T. in addition to 

1 Has this strange usage of Luke arisen from Plat. Rep. ii. 359 e crvWoyov 
yevofxevov rots irotfiecriv (with yevofi. ) elcoGoTos ? Cp. § 2, 4. 

2 D has ovdev ol^lov Oav&rov ireirpayixevov icrrlv kv ccury, c invenimus in illo. 
-Perhaps the right reading is earlv ev avrQ without ireirp., cp. A. 25. 5. 

§37-4-6.] DATIVE. II3 

(fxiLvecrQaij <f>avepov(r9aL we have also oirTavtcrdal tlvl (aor. 6<f>6$jvai) 
' to appear ' with the same construction (6cf>0rjTc /xot is found already 

in Eurip. Bacch. 914; Hebr. fiSH? with btf or £, Syr. NTWlK with b), 
A. 1. 3 and passim, not to be explained as equivalent to 6cj>dr)vai vwo 
tlvos (in A. 7. 26 &4>6r) avrois is rather supervenit than apparuit). Cp. 
§ 54, 4. So too OeaOrjvai rots avOpMirois Mt. 6. i, 23. 5, and more 
frequently yvoxrOrjvcu. ' to become known,' A. 9. 24 etc., § 54, 4 x (but 
eyvcDo-rai vir avrov 1 C. 8. 3, 'has been recognised by God/ cp. 
G. 4. 9), tvpeOrjvai only in E. 10. 20 O.T. (there is a v.l with 4v, but 

the Hebrew in Isaiah 65. 1 has !?). 2 We have further yafielo-Oat tlvl 
of the woman (as in Att.) 1 C. 7. 39 (but cp. § 24 ya/zetv), fivyjo-rev- 
eo-Oat tlvl Mt. 1. 18, and TretdecrOai as in Attic ; Ja. 3. 7 Sa/xafeTax Kol 
deSafxao-rai rrj (frvcrei rrj dvOpioirLvrj is ambiguous (SafjLrjvai tlvl is 
Homeric, but here the dat. is rather instrumental), in 2 P. 2. 19 <S 
rts yJTrrjTai, tovto) Kdl StSovXiDTcu (SovXovv Ttvi) the relative most prob- 
ably means ' whereby,' since fjTTav in Hellenistic Greek is an active 
verb and may form an ordinary passive. 3 On crvv€(f)0)V7j6r] A. 5. 9 
vide infra 6, page 114, note 1. 

5. To the dative expressing the weakest connection, the so-called 
ethic dative, may be referred Ap. 2. 5 (cp. 16) epxopMi o-oi, unless 
rather the dative, as in Mt. 21. 5 O.T. epx^rat 0-01, is an incorrect 

rendering of the Hebrew Tfe. Cp. Buttm. 155 f. Another Hebraism 
is dcrrelos tw 6e(o A. 7. 20, like LXX. Jonah 3. 3 7ToAts fieydXr) t<£ 0£$ 
(Q^rtJD^JD), i>& 'very great/ whereas 2 P. 3. 14 dcnriXoi kcu a/zdyu/Tot 
avTw (God) evpeOrjvai probably rather contains the dat. denoting 
possession, cp. supra 3 ; 4 Barn. 8. 4 fieyaXot r<£ dey ' for God/ ' in God's 
sight.' Another case of assimilation to Hebrew is seen in the fact 
that the classical use of dat. fiot in addresses (w tzkvov /jlol, (3 Hpurapxe 
fioi) has disappeared and its place been taken by the gen.: tckvov pov 

2 Tim. 2. 1, reKva fxov G. 4. 19, reKvia [jlov 1 Jo. 2. 1 (in 3. 18 as a 
v.l., kAB al. read without p.ov, which is the ordinary usage ; with 
7ratSta the pronoun never occurs), irdrep rjnuv Mt. 6. 9 (elsewhere 
irdrep without pron., as the LXX. also translates the Hebr. "UN^ 
Gen. 22. 7 etc.). 

6. Dative of community. — This dative, which is related to the 
instrumental dat. ( = dat. of accompaniment or association), is 

1 With A. 7. 13 aveyvaipLcrOr) 'loocrrjcf) rots &8e\<f)6Ls avrov, cp. yvtapifciv rl rivi 2. 28. 

2 The dat. with evpio-Keadai in R. 7. 10 etc. is of another character, cp. supra 

3 ad fin. ; on 2 P. 3. 14 vide infra 5. 

3 Ja. 3. 18 Kapirbs ... aireiperai rots ttoiovglv elp^vrjv is an instance of dat. com- 
modi ; cp. 1 P. 5. 9, L. 18. 31 (supra 2). — There are clear instances of the dat. 
governed by the passive as such in the Clementine Homilies, e.g. iii. 68 0e$ 
effT&yrjraL, ix. 21 daifiocTiv atcoijeraL, xix. 23 ^ri^x^rat rots raireivofc. 

4 A comparison, however, of E. 1. 4 elvcu ijfias ... dfjabfiovs Ko/rcvaiiriov avrov, 
Col. 1. 22 Trapao-TTjo-ai vfids ... dfjubfiovs /cat aveyK\r)rovs Ka*r. avT., makes it possible 
to interpret the dat. as equivalent to this periphrasis, which frequently takes 
the place of the correct dative, 1 Jo. 3. 22 ra ap€o~ra ivdnriov avrov. 


114 DATIVE. [§37.6. 

frequently found with dxoXovBciv (o-vvaK. ; with o-vvkirecrdai only in 
A. 20. 4, with €7r€cr#cu nowhere), beside the Hebraic olk. oTrtcrw tlvos 
Mt. 10. 38, Mc. 8. 34 v.l. (ftera tivos, also classical, occurs in Ap. 
6. 8, 14. 13 ; but in L. 9. 49 fxeO' ^/xwj/ is not 'us' but 'with us'); 
with 8iaA.€Y€<r9cu (also irpos nva as in class. Greek) ; 6|uX.€tv A. 24. 26 'to 
converse ' (irpos tlvcl L. 24. 14) ; Kpiv€<r0ai ' to dispute ' Mt. 5. 40 
(/Aera tlvos 1 C. 6. 6, cp. 7, like 7roA€/x€ti/, -jroXefiov iroielv jmera Ttvos 
Ap. 11. 7, 12. 7 al., Hebr. D2, cp. § 42, 3 ; <£iAoi /x€t dAA^Awi/ 
L. 23. 12); 8iaKpCv€<r0ai (same meaning) Jd. 9 (71-/00S T6i/a A. 11. 2, 
classical; cp. /xa^eor^at 7t/dos Jo. 6. 52); 8iaKaT€\€*yx € < r 0< u A. 18. 28; 
SiaXXdrrecrOai Mt. 5. 24, and more frequently Ka/raWdo-o-civ TLvd tlvl 
and Kara\\do-(T€crOai tlvl ; 8iapdX.\€<r0at (pass.) tlvl 'to be calumniated 
to someone' L. 16. I, pteLyvvvaL Ap. 15. 2 (with ey 8. 7, with /uera 
Mt. 27. 34, L. 13. 1) ; Ko\\ao-9ai (7rpocrKoXX.) tlvl L. 15. 15 etc.; 
Xpi]<r0ai A. 27. 3, 17, 1 C. (a v.l. in 7. 31, see § 34, 2), 9. 12, 15, 
2 0. 1. 17, 3. 12, 1 Tim. 1. 8, 5. 23, KaTaxp^oSaL 1 C. 9. 18 (o-vyxp- 
Jo. 4. 9 in an interpolated clause) ; koivwvciv R. 12. 13 al. ; krepolvyeiv 
d-n-LcrTOLs (from eT€/oo£uyos Levit. 19. 19, used of beasts of different 
kinds in a team) 2 C. 6. 14 ' to be in unequal fellowship ' (like o-vfry. 
tlvl, Win. § 31, 10 Rem. 4) ; 6|xoiovv ofioLovcrOaL Mt. 6. 8 etc.; 6fioidj;€iv 
23. 27 (intrans., v.l. 7rapo/x.), like o/jlolos vide infra; iyyileiv L. 7. 12 
etc. (also with ek 18. 35 [rrj 'lep. some cursives and Epiphanius], on 
account of the indeclinable 'hpLx^l as in 19. 29, Mt. 21. 1, 
Mc. 11. 1, though we also have els tyjv kcojutjv L. 24, 28 ; with eirl 10. 
9). The verbs compounded with <rvv which govern a dative are 
very numerous, such as o-vyKaOfjcrOaL A. 26. 30 (with /xerot in 
Mc. 14. 54, but D has Kadrjfievos), (rvyKaKO7ra0€LV 2 Tim. 1. 8, 
<TvyKaK0vxeL(rdaL H. 11. 25, crvyKaTaTLOecrOaL L. 23. 51, 6 Aoyos ovk 
(jtxfieXrjcrev eKelvovs fxrj (TvyKeKepacr/xevos (-ovs is a wrong reading), Trj 
7tl(tt€l (instrum.) tols aKovvao-Lv H. 4. 2, etc. (some few also take ftera 
as (rvXXaXelv in Mt. 17. 3, A. 25. 12, but dat. in Mc. 9. 4 etc., tt/jos 
dXXrjXovs L. 4. 36; crvfA<f)(x)veLv fitTa Mt. 20. 2, but dat. in 13 and 
elsewhere); 1 a peculiar and unclassical instance is o-wepxeo-Oal tlvl 
A. 1. 21 etc., 'to go with someone.' — Of adjectives the following 
deserve special mention : tfp.oios (with gen.? § 36, ll), 2 6 avTds (eV /cat 
to avTo) only in 1 C. 11. 5 ; fo-os Mt. 20. 12 etc. (for which we have a 
periphrasis with k/cai in A. 11. 17; 6 avTos with /ca#a>s i<al 1 Th. 2. 14, 
or with olos Ph. 1. 30) ; 3 of compounds with <rvv we have o-vfifxop^os 
tlvl Ph. 3. 21 (gen. of the thing possessed in R. 8. 29 tyjs eUovos, see 
§ 36, 11; for classical parallels Matthiae G-r. 864), o-v^vtos to> 
opLonopbaTL tov OavaTov avTov R. 6. 5 ; but the remaining compounds 
of (tvv are made into substantives (like cf>[Xos etc.) and take a gen., 

1 There is a peculiar use in A. 5. 9 <Tvi>€<f>wi>r)dr) vfiiv convenit inter vos ; cp. a 
late author quoted by Stobaeus, Flor. 39, 32 (rvve^divqae rots 8r}fj,ois, ' the com- 
munities agreed.' 

2 Besides expressing the similar person or thing, the dat. may also express 
the possessor of the similar thing (Homer ico/uai ILap'iTeaaiv bixdlai) : Ap. 9. IO 
^Xovcriv ovpas o/jloLcls (TKOpiriois, 13. II; similarly tols 1<t6tl/jlov tj/juv -k'hjtw \axovaiv 
2 P. 1. i, Buttm. p. 154. 

3 In a quotation in R. 9. 29 we have ws T6/u.oppa &v Coixoaiidrj^ev. 

§37- 6-7. j DATIVE, U S 

<rvyyevtfs (rvyKXrjpovopos (rvpfiovXos crvpLperoxos (T&. 5. 7) crvvaLXpdXdiros 
orwe/oyds crvvrpocpos. Substantives take no share in these construc- 
tions with the dat. (as they occasionally do in classical Greek, 
Kiihner Gr. II. 2 372 f.), e.g. R. 15. 26 Kotvuviav TroirjcracrOat els rovs 

7TTCOXOVS, 2 C. 9. 13, TfcS KOLVMVLOL cf>(OTL (haS the light; </>WTOS D*) 7r/OOS 

ctkotos 2 C. 6. 14, KOivuviav 'k^qre /z€# ? ^//,wi/ 1 Jo. 1. 3, 6, 7. The 
adverb dpa takes the dat. only in Mt. 13. 29 a/^a avrols tov o-itoi/ 
(but D a/xa /cat t. cr. crw avrols, cp. a//,a crw 1 Th. 4. 17, 5. 10); on 
kyyvs see § 36, 11. 

7. A great number of verbs (and adjectives) compounded with 
other prepositions besides a-vv govern the dative, while the sentence 
may also be completed by the use of a preposition ; in general there 
is this distinction made (as occasionally in classical Greek and in 
Latin), that the preposition is used where the verb has its literal 
meaning, and the dative where it has a figurative sense. Thus the 
following compounds of 4v regularly take a preposition : kpfiaLveLv, 
ifjL/3ifid£€LV, kpu/SaXXeLV, ifx/SdirreLV, kpTTLTneLV ', the following regularly 
take the dative : kyKaXelv (supra 1), kppalveo-OaL (A. 26. 11), e/*7rou£etv. 
ivTvyxdveiv (' to entreat ' ; with npos in Herm. Sim. ii. 8), but we 
also have kpbpXeireLv tlvl (person) = y8A. els TLva ; the following take 
sometimes the dat., sometimes a preposition: kyKevrplfav E. 11. 24 
els KaWieXcuov, rrj Idea eXaia, kppeveLV with dat. in A. 14. 2 2, G. 3. 10 
O.T. N*B (with kv al. and lxx.), with kv H. 8. 9 O.T., kpirrveLv. 
Compounds of els take a preposition only (dv'epxto-Bai els etc.) ; with 
iirl cp. the following exx. : ImpdXXciv knl tpartco (-iov) Mt. 9. 16, 
L. 5. 36 ; similarly kirL^dXXeLv ras x e fy>as takes €7rt, except in A. 4. 3 
where it has the dat. (D is different) ; en-mOe'vcu rrjv x^P®- riVL an d 
hri Tiva occur : elsewhere the prep, preponderates where this verb is 
used in the literal sense, as in kwl rovs cojjlovs Mt. 23. 4 (Jo. 19 2 rrj 
KecfraXfj, but A has eVt rr]v KecfraXrjv; L. 23. 26 aww rbv crravpov), and 
the dat. with the figurative sense, ovopa Mc. 3. 16 £, cp. kiriKaXelv 
tlvl ovofxa (the classical kirovopd^eLv is similarly used) Mt. 10. 25 B* 

and Buttm. p. 132, fidpos A. 15. 28, irXr^yds 16. 23; kiruiQevQai 'to 

lay hands on' 18. 10, with the idea of presenting 28. 10 1 (the prep, 
only occurs in Ap. 22. 18 kdv tls IttlO^ kir avrd [' adds to'], e-KiQ^aei 
6 Oebs eir avrbv ras irXriyas) ; k^lcnao-Oai takes dat. and kiri, etc. 
Compounds of irapd : TrapariO'evai tlvl is used (not so much ' beside 
anyone ' as ' for anyone '), and irapaTlOeo-Qai ' to commend ' takes the 
same construction; irapeSpeveLv (v.l. Trpoo-.) tw OixrLao-TrjpLQ) (fig.) 
1 C. 9. 13, and from this is derived the use with the adj. to ev7rdpe8pov 
(v.l. evwpocr.) tw Kvpi'u) 7. 35, which is more striking because this adj. 
takes the place of a substantive (Kiihner II. 2 372 f.) ; also with dat. 
7rapex €LV > irapurrdvai, 7rapicrTacr6aL (even in the literal sense e.g. 
A. 1. 10, 9. 39) ; irapelvai usually takes a prep, (irpbs vpds 2 C. 11. 8), 
but the dat. where the verb is used metaphorically 2 P. 1. 9 (and 8 
according to A); irapapeveiv tlvl (D c al. a-vpir.) Ph. 1. 25 (also the adj. 
Trapdfxovos tlvl [dat. of thing] Herm. Sim. ix. 23. 3). With -n-cpi we 
have: irepLTLdevaL with dat., TrepL/3dXXeLV L. 19. 43 (on TrepL/3. TLvd n 

1 The Syriac inserts in navi (apparently an addition of the f$ text). 


see § 34, 4), irepLKeifxevov r^jxlv ve<£os fxaprvpuyv H. 12. I, but with the 
literal sense of the verb irepl rbv TpdxqXov Mc. 9. 42, L. 17. 2, wept- 

TTl7rT£lV €1$ T07T0V A. 27, 41, DUt A^CTTaiS, 7Tet/0a(T/XOtS L. 10. 3O, Ja. 1. 2, 

irepnn-ipeiv iavrbv oBvvaLS 1 Tim. 6. io. With irpps : irpoa-TiOe'vai €7rt it 
is used where the verb has the literal sense Mt. 6. 27, L. 12. 25, em 
tlvl to add to something L. 3. 20/ but the person for whom the 
addition is made stands in the dat. Mt. 6. 33 etc., H. 12. 19; 
7rpoo-€px€<r0cu regularly takes the dat. of the person, also 0p6va>, 6pu 
H. 4. 16, 12. 1 8, 22 ; the following also take the dat. Trpoo-kx* lv (e.g. 
eavT<£), Trpoa-Kaprepdv, TrpovKXivevBai (fig.); and with the literal sense 
7rpo<r7riirT€iv (Mt. 7. 25 etc.; only in Mc. 7. 25 7rpbs tovs 7tocW avrov) > 
Trpocr<f>kpeiv (irpbs tqv — H. 5. 7, here plainly in figurative sense) ; 
7rpocTKv\ieLV XlOov tyj Qvpa. Mt. 27. 60 (A has kirl, so hrl tyjv 0. 
Mc. 15. 46); irpocnj>G>V€iv tlvl Mt. 11. 16, A. 22. 2 (D omits olvtols) 
etc., or transitively with tlv<£ 'to summon ' L. 6. 13 (D icfxavrjo-ev), 
A. 11. 2 D (L. 23. 20 D avrovs, kB olvtols, absolute verb A al.). 
— With compounds of dvrt the dat. is the prevailing construction 
(avdicTTao-QaL, avTLXkyeiv, dvTLKet(r6aL, dvTLirLTTTtLV etc.; rarely irpos nva, 
as avTayuvLfcvdai irpbs H. 12. 4), and the same holds good of com- 
pounds of viro, with which prep, as with aim the literal meaning 
becomes obliterated (vTroTaWetv tlvl, only in quotations do we have 
vtto tovs 7r68as OY viroKOLTCii tQv ttoScov 1 C 15. 27, H. 2. 8; VTroTideoSai 

1 Tim. 4. 6 'to advise'; V7rdpx^v, vwaKovuv) ; with *va we have dva- 
TiQecrdai (irpocravaT.) tlvl 'to lay a case before someone' A. 25. 14 
etc. — A substantive is also found with a dat. (cp. supra 6) in 

2 C. 11. 28 rj eTTLdTao-k fiOL rj kolO' rj^pav N*BFGr, but the text can 
hardly be correct (k c D al. [jlov, Latt. in me). 



1. The dative as the instrumental case is found in the N.T. as in 
classical Greek, but this use is considerably limited by the employ- 
ment of the periphrasis with iv. The latter usage is by no means 
foreign to the Greek language (Kiihner Gr. ii. 2 , 403 f.); for the N.T. 
writers, however, it is the Hebrew 3, which has set the example of 
this construction, 2 and for this reason the frequency with which it 
occurs differs with the individual writers : in the second half of the 
Acts (13-28) the usage is rare and never a prominent feature, 3 while 

1 'To add to the community' is expressed in A. 2. 47 by rrj iiac\ri<Tia EP (D 
iv T7j. e.), the other mss. make the verb absolute as it is in 41 and in 5. 14 ; with 
the same meaning in 11. 24 we have rep KvpLcp, which however B*, no doubt 
rightly, omits ; ' to be gathered to his fathers' is expressed by irpbs in 13. 36. 

2 In modern Greek, in which the dative is wanting, the instrumental case is. 
expressed by fierd (fii), this use of iv having disappeared. 

3 A. 13. 29 diKcuov<r$ai iv, for which see below in the text ; 26. 29 koX iv dXlyy 
teal iv fiey&Xcj}, which in the mouth of Paul (the iv dXiyip of Agrippa in 28 is 
different) apparently should be taken to mean 'by little, by much,' i.e. 
'easily, with difficulty.' Moreover the instances in the first half of the Acts, 
are not numerous. 


the reverse is the case in the Apocalypse. — Examples : with the 
sword, by the sword (to strike, to perish etc.) kv fiax^pn or pofi<f>aia 
Mt. 26. 52, L. 22. 49, Ap. 2. 16, 6. 8, 13. 10, 19. 21, kv <f>6vq fjiaxaiprjs 

H. 11. 37, fiaxaiprj without kv A. 12. 2, crTOfiart fxaxaiprjs L. 21, 24. 
To season with salt: aAa™ Col. 4. 6, dAifeiv irvpi (dXi) Mc. 9, 50 
modelled 011 O.T., but kv tlvl dXio-dr)<r€TaL to dXas Mt. 5. 13, Mc. 9. 50, 
L. 14. 34. To consume with fire etc. is kv irvpl 1 in Ap. 14. 10, 16. 8, 
17. 16 (without kv kBP), 18. 8 (for merely 'to burn with fire' even 
the Apocalypse uses irvpl KaUaOai, 8. 8, 21. 8), irvpl in Mt, 3. 12, 
L. 3. 17. 'To baptize with' is usually expressed by kv vSan or 
kv TrvevpiaTi; Luke however has vSan in 3. 16 (with kv in D, in the 
same passage all MSS. have kv 7rvevfjLart in the opposing clause), 
A. 1. 5 (but kv 7rvevfJLaTi ibid.), 11. 16 (with kv wv.; but xp^ iV TrvevpiaTt 
10. 38). With SiKaiovv SiKouovo-Oai the dat. is found as in R. 3. 28 
TrtVra, but also kv, kv vofMp G. 5. 4, A. 13. 39, kv tw alpLari tov xp- 
E. 5. 9 (Ik Trio-Tews 5. 1 etc.). On the use of kv to denote the personal 
agent, which cannot be expressed by the dat., see § 41, 1 ; on the 
Hebraic periphrases for the person with x €fc P and o-To/xa § 40, 9. 
Merpeiv 4V nvi and tlvl are used for 'to measure by' Mt. 7. 2, 
Mc. 4. 24, 2 C. 10. 12 2 (kv), L. 6. 38 (dat.); also 'to measure with/ 
Ap. 11. 1, 21. 16 (kv) KaXdpLO), The N.T. also has fieOvcrKecrdcu otVo) 
(E. 5. 18, like LXX. Prov. 4. 17), not olvov the Attic construction; 3 
similarly ir\y]povv tlvl or eV tlvi, with anything (the dat. is occasionally 
used in classical Greek, in, Eurip. Bacch. 18 with TrXfjp-qs, in Here. 
Fur. 372 and Aesch. Sept. 464 with 7rXrjpovv), besides the gen. for 
which see § 36, 4 ; cp, also virepirepio-o-evoixai tyj x a pi (* v T - X* B) 
2 C. 7. 4. 

2. The instrumental dative is moreover used to denote the cause 
or occasion: R. 11. 20 Trj dirio-Tiq. kgeKXao-Orjo-av, 'on account of their 

unbelief,' 30 rjXerjOrjTe Trj totjtwv direideia, 31 rjireiOrjcrav tw vfieTepa) 

kXeet, 'because God wished to have mercy on you,' 4 4. 20 ov dteKptOrj 
Ty ajricrTia, aAA ? kveSvva/juoOr) Trj trlo-Tei, 1 C. 8. 7 etc.; see also A. 15. 1 

7repLT6fjLV€(r0cu tw Wei tw Mwixrews, 'after,' 'in accordance with' (the f3 
text has a different and more ordinary expression) ; it also denotes 
the part, attribute etc., in respect of which anything takes place, 
1 C. 14. 20 fxrj iraiSia yiveo-Oe tolis </>pecrtV, aAAol tyj KaKia vrj-irid^eTe, 
rats 8e <£oecrii/ TeXetot yivto-Qe, Ph. 2. 7 ctx^^tl evpeOels cos dvOpojiros, 
3. 5 irepLTofxrj oKTarjpLepos, 'eight days old at circumcision,' 'circumcised 
on the eighth day % so <j)vo-€i 'by nature,' G. 2. 15 etc., tw ykvec 'by 
extraction,' A. 4. 36 etc.; airtpiTp^Toi ttj KapSia A. 7. 51, aStWros 

TOIS 7T00-IV 14. 8, kcTT€p€OVVTO TV) TTi(TT€l KoX k7T€pl(TCr€VOV TO) dplOfAO) 16. 5, 

1 An accidental coincidence with the Homeric h irvpl Kaietp II. xxiv. 38. 

2 Here the phrase is ev caurots 'by themselves,' where it is true that in 
classical Greek the dative could not stand : still no more could kv, the phrase 
would be Trpos eavrofc. 

3 Yet even classical Greek has /xedijetv fywn ; and Lucian de dea Syr. 22 
tiedtacKra eavrrji* ofay. The Apocalypse has £k : 17. 2, 6. 

4 [The words ry vfj,. i\. may also be taken with the following clause ; see 
Sanday-Headlam and Gifford ad loc. Tr.] 


ovofjLari ' by name ' (§ 33, 2), tw firJKti 7ro8iov enarov Herm. Vis. iv. 
1. 6, 1 etc. etc. The usage of the N.T. language in this respect may 
be said to be constant, since the alternative use of the accusative 
which in the classical language is widely prevalent 2 is almost entirely 
unrepresented (cp. § 34, 7). The cause may, of course, be also 
expressed by means of a preposition (e.g. by kv in kv rovrco A. 24. 16, 
Jo. 16. 30 'on this account,' § 41, 1) ; this is especially the case with 
verbs expressing emotion (classical Greek uses the simple dat. arid 
ace. as well) : \aipuv kirl nvi Mt. 18. 3 etc., kv rovroy L. 10. 20 
(R. 12. 12 rrj kkirihi is different, not 'rejoicing over the hope/ but 
'in virtue of hope/ 'in hope/) and so dyaXXidardai, evfypalveo-Qai are 
used with kv or h?i ; evSoKelv kv (els 2 P. 1. 17, Mt. 12. 18 O.T. [kv 
D; ace. »*B], cp. H. 10. 6, 8 O.T., § 34, 1), which in cultured style 
is expressed by evapea-relrat tololvtolls Ovo-lais H. 13. 16 (Diodor. 3, 
55. 9 etc.); Oavfxd^etv kiri tlvl L. 4. 22 etc., irepi rivos 2. 18 3 (on 0. 
rivd, Ti see § 34, 1), SO eKirXrjcro-ecrOai kiri tlvl, but 1 P. 4. 12 fn/ 
£evi£e<r9e rrj k.t.X. (ibid. 4 with kv), KavxdcrOai kv or kiri (for the ace. 
§ 34, 1), cryXXvireia-Oai kiri Mc. 3. 5 (but after opyi^crOai Ap. 12. 17, 
fjLaKpoOvfjb€iv Mt. 28. 26 etc., kiri [els, irpos] is used with the person 
with whom one is angry or long-suffering). 

3. This dative further expresses the accompanying circumstances, 
the manner and style of an action : 1 C. 10. 30 x^P lTl / X€T ^X (0 j ' with 

thanks/ 11. 5 wpocrevxpfievrj aKaraKaXvimp rrj KecfxxXfj (Herm. Sim. 
ix. 20. 3 yvfjbvots ttoo-lv, Vis. V. I elo-yjXOev dvr)p ... cry^aTt TroLfxeviK^^ 
H. 6. 17 efxea-crevcrev oqko>. An alternative for the dat. is fierd twos : 
Mt. 26. 7 2 rjpvyjcraTo \ke& SpKov (Xenoph. Cyr. ii. 3. 12 o-vv Oeuv opKcp 
Xeyo)), cp. H. 7. 20 f. ov x w p^s opKiofwcrlas — fieQ' 6pK.' y fierd /3tas A. 5. 
26, 24. 7 (class. (Bia, irpbs piav), /xerot cjxavrjs pieydXrjs L. 17. 15 (fierd 
cnrovSrjs /cat Kpavyrjs itoXXtjs Aeschin. 2. 10), etc. In Mc. 14. 65 
pa7TLcrjjLa(TLv avrbv eXa/Sov is quite a vulgarism, which at present can 
only be paralleled from a papyrus of the first century A.D. (an argu- 
ment to Demosth. Midias), where we find (avrbv) kovSvXols eXafiev* 
Accompanying (military) forces in classical Greek are expressed by 
the dat., in the N.T. by kv, kv SeKa x^Xida-tv diravrdv L. 14. 31, cp. 
Jd. 14, A. 7. 14 (also (elcr)epx^o-Oai kv aifxari 'with' H. 9. 25, 1 Jo. 
5. 6 ; kv pd/38u) eX9w 1 C. 4. 21, 2 C. 10. 14 etc.); kv also denotes 
manner in 4v rdxei, kv eKreveia etc., see § 41, 1. We have iravrl 
rpoTro), elre irpo^da-ei eire dXrjOeta Ph. 1. 18 (ttolols rpoirois Herm. 
Mand. xii. 3. 1), but elsewhere ov rpoirov etc., § 34, 7 (kv iravrl rp., 

1 2 C. 7. II (Tvve<TT-f)(raTe eavrotis ayvobs efocu (iv add. D b EKLP, cp. <ry. h 7-77 
vapid Clem. Cor. i. 38, 2) r£ irpdy/uLaTi is very harsh ; perhaps elvai is a corrup- 
tion of h, cp. § 34, 5. 

2 The dative is employed in classical Greek if a contrast is made or is present 
to the mind of the writer, (fifoec - vdficp, \6ycp - tyytp ; Xen. Mem. ii. 1. 31 rol$ 
(nofiaaLv ddfocLTOL - reus faxcus dpdrjTot ; on the other hand in Anab. i. 4. n for 
xoXls Qd\p<LKos 6v6fxaTL, dvofxa is correctly restored from the mss. (cp. §§ 33, 2 ; 
34, 7). 

3 Ap. 13. 3 edatifLavev otricru) rod drjpiov is very strange, a pregnant construction 
for i$. iiri rep 0. Kai iiropetidrj ozr. avrov, see W.-Gr. 

4 See Fleckeis. Jahrb. f. class. Philol. 1892, p. 29, 33. 


with a v.l. [male] tottw 2 Th. 3. 16). A usage almost peculiar to the 
N.T. (and the lxx.) is the dat. 68w etc. with iropcvco-Gai, Trcpwra/mv, 
<rroix€tv, in the N.T. always in metaphorical sense (L. 10. 31 wre- 
paivzv kv rrj 68a> €K€ivr), B without kv), in the lxx. also in the literal, 
cp. Ja. 2. 25 (class. aSiKov 68bv lovrcov Thuc. iii. 64. 4; but Hebr. 
ia'Tp TpFl Gen. 19. 2, and so Thuc. ii. 96. 1 kiropemro rrj 68$ r)v 
avrbs €7roir)o-aTo 'by means of the way '; literal sense): A.14. \6iropeveo-6ai 
rats 68ois avrQiv, Jd. 11, K. 4. 12 o-tolx^v rots ixvzo-iv (Clem. Horn, 
x. 15 t$ vfiMv o-roix^ Te irapa8eiyiLari) ; further developments are rots 
eOeariv TrepnrareLV A. 21. 21, kco/aois koli fxeOais E. 13. 13, irvevpari 
Gr. 5. 16, Tropeveo-Oai r£ 4>6/3a> rov Kvplov A. 9. 31 (the ace. is found 
with the literal sense of the word in rrjv 686v avrov A. 8. 39 ; with 
the metaphorical sense we have nop. kv 1 P, 4. 3, irtpnraruv kv 2 C. 4. 2 
etc., Kara o-dpKa E. 8. 4), Buttm. p. 160. Further (ibid 159 f.) 
verbal substantives used with their cognate verbs or with verbs of 
similar meaning stand in the dative — the usage is an imitation of the 
Hebrew infinitive absolute like MJOJ IHTO and is consequently found 
already in the LXX. — whereas the analogous classical phrases such as 
ya/xa) yafieiv ('in true wedlock'), <t>vyrj favyetv ('to flee with all 
speed ') are only accidentally similar to these The N.T instances 
are: (aKorj &kov€lv Mt. 13. 14 etc. O.T.), ariOvpLia eTreOvfirjcraJj. 22. 15, 
X a P& X a W €L J°- 3. 29, 1 kvv7TVLOLS kvv7rvid£eor6ai A. 2. 17 O.T., direiXrj 
(om. tfABD al.) cbreiA^o-to/xe&x 4. 17, irapayyekia 7rap7yyyetAa/xei/ 5. 28, 
dvaOk/xaTL dveOe/JLaricrafxev 23. 12, Trpoaevxy ir poo-qv^aro Ja. 5. 17; 
with which belong opKO) copuocrev A. 2. 30, Oavdro) reXevrdrio Mc. 7. 10 
O.T., cp. Herm. Sim. viii. 7. 3 (aTroKTctvcu 4v Oavdra) Ap. 2. 23 ; 6. 8 
is a different use). Cp. on the similar constructions with the aec. 
§ 34, 3 ; this dative of manner intensifies the verb in so far as it 
indicates that the action is to be understood as taking place in the 
fullest sense. 

4. While there is no trace of a local dative in the N.T. 2 (as is also 
the case on the whole in Attic prose), the analogous temporal dative, 
answering the question When % is still fairly frequent : it may of 
course be further elucidated by the insertion, common also in Attic, 
of the preposition kv. Since the dat. denotes the point of time, not 
the period of time, while kv can have both these meanings, it is quite 
possible to express 'in the day/ 'in the night' by kv (t#) ^epa, vvkti, 
Jo. 11. 9, A. 18. 9, 1 Th. 5. 2, but the genitive must be used instead 
of the simple dat., § 36, 13 (t$ Oepa in Herm. Sim. iv. 3 for 'in 
summer ' is incorrect, ibid. 5 we have kv r. 0. e/ceu/o)) ; on the other 

1 On the other hand we have Mt. 2. 10 ix&P y ) (Tav X a P^ v /*eya\7]i> <r065pa, with 
a closer defining of the noun, which also may be said to be the raison d'etre of 
the added verbal substantive ; such closer definition is, speaking generally, never 
found with the dat. in the N.T., though Hernias has Sim. ix. 18. 3 irovTjpevo- 
(xevovs iroiKikais rrovrjpiais, 1. 2 «rx i;(ras T V t0 "X^ <J0V ' With Jo. 18. 32 a^fialvoiv 
iroiCj) davdraj ijfieWev aTrodvrjo-Keiv should be compared 21. 19 crriiAaivuv ttolc^ davaruj 
do%d<r€i rov deov : it is evident that in the first passage the cognate verb is by no 
means obligatory, but might be replaced by another verb. 

2 But in Herm. Vis. iv. 3. 7 we have iroiy totti? airrjkdev, probably through 
the dat. and eh having become interchangeable, § 37, 1 and 2. 


hand in a statement about a definite day or a definite night, the 
simple dative is no less correct than the dat. with kv. In the N.T. 
we always have rrj rpiTy fjfxtpy Mt. 16. 21 (D reads otherwise), 17. 

23 (ditto), L. 9. 2 2 (ditto), 24. 7, 46; rrj irpUTrj rjfi. tw dfvpuDv 
Mc. 14. 12, rrj rjfi. Trj oyBoy A. 7. 8 (with kv L, 1. 59, but DL omit kv), 

TOLKTYJ fjfX. 12. 21, TTOtCC 1?/A. (V.l. W/OCt) Mt. 24. 42, $ W- L» 17. 29 f. 

(30 D is different), rrj r)fx. rwv o-a/3/3dTO)v L. 13. 14, 16, A. 13. 14, 
16. 13, cp. inf. rots <rdf3/3a<riv, but with kv L. 4. 13, the readings vary 
in 14. 5 ; rfj kcrxdry rjfi. Jo. 12. 48, with kv 7. 37, 11. 24, with var. 
lect. 6. 39 f., 44, 54; SO rrj pua o-a/3/2aTtov (cp. for this Mc. 16. 2 1 , 9, 
Jo. 20. 1; with kv A. 20. 7); with l/cetVry and ravry kv is usually 
inserted, but Jo. 20. 19 has rfj r^x. Ik.; and the pronouns are used 
with vvkti without kv in L. 12. 20, 17. 34, A. 12. 6, 27. 23 ; always 
rrj kiriovcrrj or kyoixkvr) yj/jl. (vvkti), but confined to Acts, e.g. 7. 26, 
21. 26; also rrj egrjs 21. 1 etc. (but with kv L. 7. 11, where D omits 
kv and there is a strongly supported reading kv ro> kgrjs ; the readings 
vary in 9. 37), Trj kirKJxao-Kovvri k.t.X. Mt. 28. I (rjfjiepa, kol rj/jbepq. 
1 every day ' 2 C. 4. 16 after the Hebrew Dl^l DT, == Ka0' kKaa-rrjv fjp,. 
H. 3. 13). Further instances are: rerdpTY) <J>v\aicfj ttJs wktos Mt. 
14. 25, t# ko-TrepLvy <f>. r. v. D in L. 12. 38, elsewhere in the same verse 
this word takes kv even in D; iroia cf>. Mt. 24. 43 ; fj ov oWetre «pa 44, 
iroia copy L. 12. 39, rrj &pa, tov OvfiidpLaros 1. 10, rrj kvdrrj w. Mc. 15. 34, 
a {, T yj T jj ^ l 2. 38 etc. (avrrj Trj WKTL Herm. Vis. iii. 1. 2, 10. 7), as 
well as kv avr.r. a). L. 12. 12 etc. (kv also occurs with kK€Lvrj Mt. 26. 55 
etc., and as a v.l. in Jo. 4. 53); /u$ w. Ap. 8. 10, 16, 19, cp. on the 
alternative use of the ace. § 34, 8. The simple dat. is not used in 
the case 6f €Tos, but kv (L. 3. i) ; €T€(riv Tecro-apaKOVTa — wKoSopbrjOrj 
Jo. 2. 20 is a different use of the dative, for which we have also kv 
(om. «) rpio-lv rjfjLepcus in the same verse and in 19 (kv om. B), 
answering the question In how long a time % where in classical 
Greek kv is the ordinary construction. 2 With names of feasts we 
have Mc. 6. 21 tols yeveo-tois avrov, Mt. 14. 6 3 ; frequently tols 
o-dfifiao-iv, c on the Sabbath/ Mt. 12. 1 etc., as well as kv rots o-. 
L; 4. 31 al., also r$ <ra/3/3dT(p L. 6. 9, o-a/S/Sdra) Mt. 24. 20 (kv 0-. 
EF al., D Gu/Spdrov § 36, 13), Jo. 5. 16 D, 7. 22 B (al. eV <r., as all 
MSS. read in 23 bis), t<£ kxofJikvw <r. A. 13. 44 (ev o*. SevTepoirpioTG) 
L. 6. 1, ev Ire/oo) 0-. 6. 6); ica/rd 7rai/ (rd/3/3aTov A. 13. 27 and elsewhere. 
Trj loprxi rbv Trdvxa L. 2. 41 (with lv D) ; elsewhere kv rfj 4. (/comx 
koprrjv ' every feast' Mt. 27. 15 etc.). 'Erepcus yeveais E. 3. 5, 181a 
yevfa A. 13. 36; with kv 14. 16. Kaipots ISiois 1 Tim. 6. 15. Trj 
OXcipei vwofjikvovre^ R. 12. 12, 'in tribulation/ is probably only due 
to assimilation with the neighbouring datives in the same passage. 

1 Mav irpwi ry ixia r. <r., but ACE al. read ttjs fiias and D jtuas, which could be 
explained as partitive. 

2 'Ev Tpi<rlj> 7]/jl. occurs also in Mt. 27. 40, 81a rpi&v rjfi. in 26. 61, Mc. 14. 58. 

3 In Mt. the mss. are divided between yeveaiois 8Z yevo/mfrois ^BDL al., and 
yeveaiajv 8£ yevofitvuv CK (cp. Mc. 6. 2) or ayofxevtav EG al.; the dative would 
represent an unusual combination of the absolute use of the participle and the 
temporal dative, and is best attributed to scribes who interpolated it from Mc. 

§ 38. 5, § 39- 1.] PREPOSITIONS WITH A CCUSA TIVE. j 2 1 

5. An unclassical use is that of the dative to denote duration of 
time, instead of the accusative. But this use is only guaranteed for 
transitive verbs, and, in a few instances, for passives : whereas, in 
the case of intransitive verbs (also with a passive in Ap. 20. 3 ; 
and a transitive verb in Mc. 2. 19 ocrov \povov, L. 13. 8 tovto to eros, 
A. 13. 18 o>s Teo-o-epoLKovraeTrj xp° vov , ibid. 21), the accusative still 
remains: A. 8. 11 iKavcp XP° VC P cgeo-raKevai avrovs 'a long time/ 
L. 8. 29 7roX\ols XP^ V0LS crvvrjfynraKet, avrov, R. 16. 25 \P' atooviots 
o-eo-iyrjfjLevov (but d7re§Y)/jLr)<rev xp^ vov ^ LKavovs L. 20. 9, and correspond- 
ing phrases occur elsewhere with intrans. verbs); in L. 8. 27 the 
readings are divided between XP° V( P iK - an( ^ * K (° L7r °) XP° V(X)V * LK - (°^ K 
eveSvo-aro Ipbdnov), in Jo. 14. 9 between rocrovro) XP° V( P (P L€ ^ fy^ v 
elfu) nDLQ and too-ovtov xp> AB al., as in A. 28. 12 between rj/jL€pcus 
rpicriv and rjfJLepas Tpets (e7re/xe6va/^ei/). A further instance is cos erecriv 
T€TpaKo<riois kcu 7revrrjK0vra eSw/cev Kpnds A. 13. 20, 1 'throughout 450 
years' (ibid. 18, 21 the accusative, vide supra). The reason for the 
employment of the dative appears to be that the accusative was 
regarded as the direct object, and therefore the writer did not like 
to place another object beside it. 2 


1. The remaining ideas which complete the meaning of verbs 
and nouns are expressed not by a case alone, but with the help of 
a preposition : a practice which in the course of the history of the 
language became more and more adopted in opposition to the 
employment of the simple case. The N.T. still preserves the whole 
collection of the old prepositions proper of the Greek language, 
with the exception of dfx^i, but along with these the employment 
of prepositions not strictly so called was further developed. 
Prepositions proper may be divided into : I. Those that take one 
case : 1 . with ace. dvd, eh : 2. with gen. dvrl, dtro, e£ £k, irpo : 
3. with dat. If, o-vv. II. With two cases, i.e. with ace. and gen.: 
Sid, Kara, fierd, irepi, virep, viro. III. With three cases : hri, 7rapd, 
tt/oos. A simplification is seen in the fact that /xera, 7rept, vtto are 
relegated from Class III. to Class II., while dvd (as already happens 
in classical prose) is relegated from II. (dat. and accus.) to I. (the 
loss being on the side of the dative) ; moreover -n-pos is now not far 
from being confined to the construction of I. 1. Quasi-Prepositions 
all take the genitive, and are strictly adverbs or cases of a noun 
which received the character of prepositions only at a later period, 
but in N.T. times resemble the regular prepositions in that they 

1 The passage is seriously corrupted in most of the mss. , as the statement of 
time has become attached to the preceding clause (19), where also there is a 
transitive verb. 

2 In Josephus, however, there is no perceptible difference between the dative 
and accusative denoting duration of time, W» Schmidt de Jos. elocut. 382 f. 
(except that diarpi^eip and fieveiv always take the accusative). 

122 PREPOSITIONS [§ 39. 1-3. 

never or hardly ever stand without their case : eveKev, \dptv ' on 
account of,' x^P^i dvev, drep, 7r\r)v 'except/ pexph &XP L i ^ (tfS 'unto' 
(these last are also conjunctions), eparpoo-Oev, evwiriov, evavriov etc. 
'before,' oVio-a> 'behind,' e-n-ava), 'upon,' wo/caTw 'beneath,' p.era^v 
' between.' Naturally no hard and fast line can be drawn between 
preposition and adverb in these cases. 

2. Of prepositions with the accusative, dvd, which has already 
become rare in Attic prose, has well-nigh disappeared in the N.T. 
'Ava fjLeo-ov (with gen.) 'between' Mt. 13. 25 etc. (Polyb. etc., lxx.: 
modern Gr. ava/zecra) = ev fiea-o) (L. 8. 7 al. ), cp. § 40, 8 ; dvd fiepos 
'in turn' 1 C. 14. 27 (Polyb.); elsewhere it is distributive 'apiece,' 
eXafiov dva fyvdpiov Mt. 20. 9 etc., dva irrepvyas e£ Ap. 4. 8, or 'at 
the rate of,' Mc. 6. 40 KXio-tai dvd eKarov A al. (as in L. 9. 14), 
but with Kara kBD (/carot being an equivalent for dvd in all the 
above-mentioned uses) ; stereotyped as an adverb (like Kara, § 51, 5) 
Ap. 21. 21 dvd ets €k<wtos tujv 7tv\(dvu)v = Kad* ets (Herm. Sim. ix. 2. 3, 
see § 45, 3). 

3. Els not only maintained its own place in the language, but also 
absorbed the kindred preposition hv ; many instances of this absorp- 
tion appear already in the N.T., although, if we take the practice of 
the N.T. as a whole, ev is considerably more than a match for els. 
The classical position, namely that ev with the dative answers 
the question 'where V els with accusative the question ' whither V 
had from early times been simplified in some dialects by ev taking 
to itself (like the Latin in) both cases and both functions ; but the 
popular Hellenistic language went in the other direction and re- 
duced everything to &$ with accusative, representing ' where ? ' and 
'whither?' From this intermixture, which meets us also in the 
LXX. and in Egyptian private records, 1 no writer of narrative in 
the N.T. is free, with the exception of Matthew : not even Luke 
in the Acts, where on the contrary most of the examples are found ; 
John has less of it than the others. Passages : Mc. 1. 9 e^airrio-Qt] 
els rbv 'lopSdvrjv (ev 1. 5, Mt. 3. 6), 1. 39 Krjpvcrcrwv els ras o-vvayo)yds 
{ev rats crwaycoyous EF al.), 2. 1 els olkov ecrriv AC al. (ev oiko) tfBDL), 

10. IO (ev AC al. elcreXOovros els Syr. Sin.), 13. 3 KaOrjpievov els to 
opos (KaOi^eiv els 2 Th. 2. 4 is correct classical Greek), 13. 9, 16 
6 els rbv dypov (ev Mt. 24. 18), L. 4. 23 yevo/meva ('done') els rrjv 
(KB, els DL, ev rrj al.) Kacf>apvaov/JL (1. 44 is also unclassical, eyeveTO 
rj <f)(i)vr) els rd (Stcx piov, cp. yeveo-Oai els Tea. A. 20. 16, 21. 17, 25. 15 ; 
correctly ev 13. 5), 9. 61, 11. 7 els tyjv kolttjv eloriv (ev D), 21. 37 (?), 
A. 2. 5 els 'lep. KaroiKovvres (ev ** C BCDE ; correctly H. 11. 9 7rapw- 
K7)o~ev els yyjv, Mt. 2. 23, 4. 13, cp. Thuc. ii. 102. 6 KaToiKLcrOels els 
tottovs), 2. 17 O.T. cp. 31 eyKaraXelxj/eis tyjv -tyvyyiv p,ov els dSrjv, 
39 tois els piaKpdv (class, rots piaKpdv [sc. 68bv] cwrotKowtv), 7. 4. I2 V 
8. 20, 23 (v.l.), 40 evpeOr] els "A£o*tov, 9. 21 (ev all MSS. except ttA), 

11. 25 D, 14. 25 (ev BCD), 17. 13 D, 18. 21 D, 19. 22 (4vD), 21. 13, 

1 So in the Egyptian records of the Berlin Museum, vol. ii. 385 els 'AXeifdv- 
dpeidv ian, 423 KivdwefoavTos els $a\a<rcrav ; Kaibel Epigr. 134 (written at 
Athens in imperial times) els tuv$ov Kelfxaa. 

§ 39. 3-4.] WITH A CCUSA TIVE. ! 2 3 

23. 11 bis, 25. 4, 26. 20, Jo. 1. 18 6 w eis tov koA.7tov tov iraTpos y 

17. 23 tVa <J}(TIV T€Te\€L0)fJL€VOL €fcS (t6) 4V, Cp. 1 Jo. 5. 8 Ofc T/)€tS €IS TO 4V 

elo-iv. But ecTTt/ ets to fjLecrov Jo. 20. 1 9, 26 is classical (Xenophon 
Cyr. iv. 1. i), cp. 21. 4 (v.l. eV*). 1 On the other hand, the Epistles 
and — what is still more striking — the Apocalypse — show at least in 
the local signification a correct discrimination between els and iv, 
except in (1 Jo. 5. 8, see above, and) 1 P. 5. 12 (a postscript to the 
letter written in the apostle's own hand) rrjv \apiv — €U rjv crrrJTe 
(eo-TrjKare KLP), which certainly cannot mean ' put yourself into it/ 
but ' stand fast therein/ 2 Ets for iv is frequent in Hermas, Vis. i. 
2. 2 exovcra /3i/3\iov els ras x e W a< >y u - 4. 3, Sim. i. 2 etc.; see also 
Clem. Cor. ii. 8. 2 (19. 4I), Clem. Horn. xii. 10. It thus appears 
that at that time this use of els was still a provincialism, although 
even so the fact that several authors do not share in it is remark- 
able. On the reverse interchange, iv for els, see § 41, 1. 

4. Under the head of intermixture of els and 4v may be also 
reckoned L. 1. 20 ir\ripto6r)vovTai els tov ttaipov avTwv (correctly with 
iv Mt. 21. 41, 2 Th. 2. 6), whereas L. 13. 9 kolv TroiTjo-y Kapirbv els to 
jxeWov has classical parallels (so Is vcrrepov Hdt. 5. 74) ; correct are 
also A. 13. 42 els to fxeTa^v o~d/3/3aTOv, 2 C. 13. 2 els to irdXiv (cp. 
classical elo-avOts) ; the remaining temporal uses of els are still more 
completely in agreement with classical Greek. — A. 7. 53 i\df3eTe rbv 
vo/jlov els StaTayas dyyeXiov = iv StotTayats (cp. Mt. 9. 34 and other 

passages). — After the Hebrew d v^pv V> Mc. 5. 34 and Lc. 7. 50, 
8. 48 say viraye els elprjvrjv (so also LXX. 1 Sam. 1. 1 7 etc.): but the 
sense seems to be better given by Ja. 2. 16 virdyere iv elpyjvrj (so D 
in both passages of Luke). In other instances the caprice of the 
writer in his choice of els or iv is not surprising, since Hebrew had 
only the one preposition Si, and classical Greek had in most of these 
cases none at all. Thus Trio-Teveiv els alternates with 7rto~T. iv 
(Mc. 1. 15) and 7rto-T. eVt, in addition to which the correct classical 
7T. tlvl appears, § 37, 1 ; there is a corresponding interchange of 
prepositions with the subst. tticttis (r) iv Xp., r) els X/>., beside the 
objective genitive), and with ireiroiOkvai^ which also has the simple 
dative : see for this verb and for iXiri^eiv § 37, 2 ; further, with 
SfjLvvvcu (which in classical Greek takes accus., § 34, 1) in Mt. 5. 35 
iv and ets are found side by side ; with evSoKetv ' to have pleasure ' 
iv is frequent, ets occurs in Mt. 12. 18 O.T. (6V simply K*B, iv <± D) 
and 2 P. 1. 17. The rendering of the Hebrew E^S is especially 
variable: t<o o-a} SvopLan (instrumental dative) 4 Mt. 7. 22, ets ovofia 

^'Yiraye vixpai els tt]v Kohvufiridpav 9. 7 is supported by parallels from profane 
writers ; vtyai however appears not to be genuine (Lachm.; om. A al., cp. 11). 

2 1 P. 3. 20 els rjv (kl(3o)tov) 6X1701 dteadbdrjaav is ' into which few escaped,' cp. 
2 Tim. 4. 18 (lxx. Gen. 19. 19). 

3 Similarly dappd iv 'confide in' 2 C. 7. 16 : but els 10. I = dpa(TiJS elfu Howard 


4 The simple dative is further found in (Mt. 12. 21, see § 37, 1, note 2)> 
Mc. 9. 38 AX al. (rell. iv), Ja. 5. 10 AKL (rell. iv). 

124 PROPOSITION'S [§ 39- 4-5, § 40. 1-2. 

irpo<j)r)TOV 10. 41, els to e/xoi/ ovo/xa 18. 20 (28. 19), «rt tw ovo^art j*oi; 
18. 5, €i/ 6i>6fjLaTL Kvpiov 21. 9. Again 'to do to anyone' is iroLelv 
{epyd£ecr6ai) Tt eV Tivt, ets nva, tlvl (Att. Tira), see § 34, 4 (beside 
Trotelv eXerj/jLoo-vvas els A. 24. 17 there is an alternative iroieiv eXeos 
jxerd [Hebr. DJ7] TtvosL. 10. 37). With the verb Ho announce/ if the 
communication is made to several persons, either els or ev is admis- 
sible in Attic Greek (elireiv els rbv SyJ/jlov, ev no o^//-0)); so also in N.T. 
Krjpvo-o-eiv els Mc. 13. 10 (ev D), 14. 9, 1 L. 24. 47, 1 Th. 2. 9 (vfitv »*), 
ev 2 C. 1. 19, G. 2. 2, evayyeXi£e<r6aL els 1 P. 1. 25, eV G. 1. 16. 

5. In place of a nominative (or accusative in the respective 
passages) els is found with the accusative, after a Hebrew pattern, 
with etvcu, 7tv€(r9<u, Xo7^€o-0ai, § 33, 3 : for the sense ' to represent 
•as/ 'reckon as ' see § 34, 5. But in G. 3. 14 ha els rd eOvrj fj evXoyia 
rod 'A/3paa/uL yevqrai the simple case would be the dative, cp. § 37, 3, 
or in classical Greek the genitive ; cp. eyylfav els for rti/t, § 37, 6 (in 
modern Greek els is the usual circumlocution for the lost dative, 
cp. ibid. 1). — Ets for ewt or rrpos : Jo. 4. 5 epx^rai els ttoXiv k.t.X. 
'comes to ; not 'into/ 11. 31, 38 virdyei (epx^rai) els (D 11. 38 eirl) 
to fjLvqfieiov, 20. 3 (in 8 els is correct); in accordance with which 
some would support the reading of DHP in Mc. 3. 7 dvex^prjo-ev els 
(instead of Trpbs) ttjv OdXacrcrav (similarly in 2. 13 Tisch. reads egyjXOev 
els rrjv OdX. with K* for irapd, and in 7. 31 with rBD al.). 2 Even 
Matthew in 12. 41 fxerevo^a-av els to Krjpvyfxa 'Iwva has an instance of 
els for wpos, cp. Hdt. 3. 52 irpbs tovto to KrjpvyfJLa ovns ol SiaXeyeardcu 
y]6eXe-('m consequence of). 


1. 'Avti is one of the prepositions that are dying out, being 
represented by some twenty instances in the whole N.T. ? Av#' &v 
'for the reason that ' = ' because ' L. 1. 20, 19. 44, A. 12. 23, 2 Th. 
2. 10, classical, also in lxx. 2 Kings 22. 17 = ^^. inHFl ; 'for this' 
= ' therefore' L, 12. 3, dvrl rovrov E. 5. 31 O.T. (eveKev rovrov LXX, 
and Mt. 19. 6, Mc. 10. 7, ^""p^).— Equivalent to a genitive of 
price (similarly classical Greek) H. 12. 16 dvrl /fyaxretus /uas d-ireSoro 
rd 7rpcoTOTOKta.— In a peculiar sense, Jo. 1. 16, \dpiv dvrl x^P LT0 ^ 
iXd/Sofjiev, cp. class, yrjv 77-pb yfjs eXavveorOat i from one land to another/ 
and frequently eX^lo-tv !£ eXirtSayv and the like. • 

2. 'Air<$ has still maintained its place in modern Greek, while it 
has taken over the uses of e£, which disappears ; in the IST.T. this 
mixture has already begun, although (with regard to the frequency 
with which either is employed) e£ still holds its own fairly easily 

1 This passage might indeed be a case of els for ev : ottov iai> KrjpvxOy to 
e^ayye'Xtov els oXov rbv koct/jlov, XaX^d^aetai k.t.X. 

2 Another incorrect use is dore SolktvXiov els rr\v xeZpa L. 15. 22, class. irepl, see 
Plato Rep. ii. 359 E ; also in the same passage vTrodrj/nara els roi>s 7r65as (class, 
dat., Odyss. 15. 368). 

§ 40. 2-3.] WITH GENITIVE. 1 25 

against diro (as kv does against ets, § 39, 3). Instances of mixture 1 
direXOtlv (e£- EHLP) dirb (om. HLP) rrjs tto/Ws A. 16. 39, which 
means not 'to depart from the neighbourhood of the city' (where 
oltto is right), but ' to go out of the city/ 13. 50, <Mc/ 16. 9 d</>' (Trap' 
C*DL) r)S €^€J3€/3XrjKCL eirrd oat/^ovta, H. 11. 15 d<f> rjs (jrarpiSos) 
e^e/fyo-av. However in most cases in a connection of this kind e£ 
and diro are still correctly distinguished. — Also the partitive. I£, 
which itself is scarcely classical (§ 35, 4), is occasionally represented 
by the still more unclassical oltto, Mt. 27. 21 riva dirb tw 8va 
( = class. TTorepov tovtoiv), and both are used promiscuously in place 
of the classical genitive in phrases like l to eat of l to take of* 
etc., § 36, 1. Contrary to Attic usage is nvds rwv dirb rrjs ZkkXt]- 
o-ias A. 1 2. 1 ' those belonging to the community ' (not those who 
came from the community), cp. 6. 9, 15. 5, whereas in A. 10. 45, 
11.2, Tit. 1. 10 we have ol Ik irepirofjLyjs correctly (ol £k rrjs Siar/ot/^s 
tolvttjs Aeschin. 1. 54) ; still Hellenistic writers like Plutarch have 
similar phrases. 1 Again, eg would be the correct preposition to ex- 
press extraction from a place ; but N.T. has rjv 6 QiXanros dirb 
Br)6orai8d, £k tt}? 7roAecos 'Av&peov Jo. 1. 44, cp. 45, 2 Mt. 21. II, 
A. 10. 38, and so always, unless as in L. 2. 4 (e/c iroXews Na£), 
iroXis is added as well; diro is also regularly used of a person's 
country except in John, A. 6. 9, 21. 27, 23. 34, 24. 18 (but in 
classical Greek, Isocr. 4. 82 etc. rovs Ik rrjs Ao-tas). 3 See also- 
Acts 2. 5. Material : evSvpa dirb rpix^v Mt. 3. 4. ' After,' 'out of: 
iSwafjaJjOrjcrav dirb dcrOeveias H. 11. 34 (classical Greek has Xcvkov 
rjpLap elcriSeiv £k ^eifiaTOs). 

3. 'Atto has supplanted inro in the sense of 'on account of, ? 'for' 
(of things which occasion or hinder some result by their magnitude) : 
dirb rrjs AuV)|S KOtfJuofJievovs L. 22. 45, Mt. 13. 44, 14. 26, A. 20. 9, 
12. 14 dirb tt)s x a P^s °v* fjvoigev, 22. 11, L. 19. 3, (24. 41), Jo. 21. 6, 
Herm. Yis. iii. 11. 2 ; cp. e£ infra 4. Also wo with a passive verb 
or a verb of passive meaning is often replaced by diro, although in 
this instance the mss. commonly exhibit much diversity in their 
readings. A. 2. 22 diroSeSeiyfievov dirb rov 6eov, 4. 36 kiriKXrjOels 
Baova/3ds dirb (D virb) tcov diroo-roXutv, Mt. 16. 21 7roAAa iraOetv dirb 
(D virb) twv k.t.X. (in the parallel passage Mc. 8. 31 dirb is only read 
by AX al., the rest have virb : in L. 17. 25 dirb is read by all). — 'Airo 
further encroaches upon the province of Trapd with the genitive : 
aKomiv diro A. 9. 13, 1 Jo. 1. 5; fxavOdveiv diro G. 3. 2, Col. 1. 7; 
7rapa\ap J /3dv€LV diro 1 C. 11. 23 (irapa DE, diroXafJifi. diro followed by 
the same verb with irapd Herm. Yis. v. 7) etc.; also in the phrase 
'to come from a person': dirb 'Iolkw/Sov G. 2. 12, dirb 6eov Jo. 13. 3, 
16. 30 (iK 8. 42, uapd 16. 27, cp. § 43, 5). — The use of the old geni- 
tive of separation (§ 36, 9) is far more restricted in the N.T. than in 

1 So Plut. Caes. 35 ol airo (3ov\rjs, members of the senate. 

2 But in 1. 47 €K Nafr dtjvarai tl ayadbv elvcu ; cp. 4. 22 77 (rur-qpia e/c rCov 
'Iov5aia>i> eariv. 

3, Att6 is found already in Homer and poetry: d7rd HirdpTTjs Hdt. 8. H4>,. 
Soph. El. 691. 

1 26 PREPOSITIONS [§ 40. 3-5. 

the classical language through the employment of curb (e£) : so regu- 
larly with eXevOepovv, Xvetv, yupi^eiv etc., also with vo-repeiv (ibid.). 
Much more remarkable, however, is the diro, which in imitation of 
the Hebrew yiQ y ^pS'ft = ' for,' is employed with verbs meaning 'to 
hide,' Ho be on one's guard,' 'to fear' (similarly in the lxx., Buttm. 
p. 278). See on KpvizTeLV n diro tlvos § 34, 4 ; <f>€vy€iv, cf>vXdcro~eLv 
and -eo-Ocu, (fro/SeiarQai, alcrxvveo-Qai diro tlvos § 34, 1 ; to which must 
be added irpoo-kx^v kavrcj) or still more abbreviated irpoo-ex^v (sc. tw 
vovv 'to have a care for oneself' = 'to beware'), diro tlvos L. 12. 1, 
Mt. 7. 15 etc.; in a similar sense bpdv, ftXeireLv diro Mc. 8. 15, 12. 38. 
Trjpetv and StaTrfpeiv, however, take lg (equally unclassical) : ef (d<fi D) 
<5v 8iaTrjpovvT€s eavTovs A. 15. 29, Jo. 17. 25, Ap. 3. 10. In these 
instances also the idea of separation or alienation is expressed by 
diro, as it is in many expressions, especially in St. Paul, which can- 
not be directly paralleled from the classical language: K. 9. 3 dvdde/jLa 
ttvai diro tov Xyo., 2 C. 11. 3 /x?) <j>6aprj t<x vorjfJiaTa v/mov diro Trjs dirXo- 

TrjTOS T7JS €V XyO., 2 Th. 2. 2, Col. 2. 20 dirtOdvtTe dlTO TUV O-T0L)(€L(j)V tov 

koct/jlov, similarly with KaTapyelorOaL E,. 7. 6, G. 5. 4 ; also fieTavoelv diro 
in A. 8. 22, cp. H. 6. I, e/c Ap. 2. 21 etc.; Slkollovv, OepaireveLV, Xovetv 
diro approach still more nearly to Xveiv etc. 1 Cp. in Hermas and 
other writings : 8ia4>0apf]vai diro Sim. iv. 7, diroTv^Xovo-d at diro Mand. 
V. 2. 7, KoXofibs diro Sim. ix. 26. 8, Ktvbs diro Sim. ix. 19. 2, eprjfjLOS 
diro Clem. Cor. ii. 2. 3, XnroTaKT&v diro i. 21. 4, apyetv a7ro 33. 1. — 
On the use of diro in reckoning distance (diro o-TaStW StKairtvTe) see 
§ 34, 8. — On dirb irpoo-(oirov tlvos infra 9. 

4. On the largely employed 4g, Ik there is little to remark. It 
takes the place of the subjective genitive 2 C. 9. 2 to J£ i>//,t3y (tjXos 
(without !£ kBCP), Cp. 8. 7 t^ e£ i>/zg]j/ ev ^imv (?) dydiry. For its 
partitive use cp. § 35, 4, § 36, 1 ; with ' to fill ' ibid. 4 (§ 38, 1). In 
place of a genitive of price : rjyopacrav e£ olvtQv (the 30 pieces of 
silver) tov dypov Mt. 27. 7, § 36. 8. In a peculiar sense : rov? 
vlkwvtols €K tov OrjpLov (probably = Trjprjo-avTas €olvtovs €K . . . , supra 3) 
Ap. 15. 2. Denoting the cause like diro, and classical viro, supra 3 : 
Ap. 16. 10 ifiao-iovTo ras yXwo-cras avTcov €k tov irovov, cp. n, 21 : 
this book with the Gospel and the first Epistle of St. John makes 
proportionally the largest use of ef, of any of the N.T. books. 
With attraction e£ for iv see § 76, 4. 

5. Ilpb is not represented hy very many examples, most of which 
= 'before' of time ; 'before' of place only in Acts (5. 23, v.l.) 12. 6 
(v.l. irpbs in D), 14, 14. 13, Ja. 5. 9 (elsewhere epirpoo-Oev, vide 
infra 7); of preference irpb irdvTiov Ja. 5. 12, 1 P. 4. 8. On the 
Hebraistic irpb irpoo-dnrov tlvos infra 9. In a peculiar usage: Jo. 12. 1 
irpb e£ r)fjL€pcov tov 77-ao-xa ' 6 days before the passover,' cp. Lat. ante 
diem tertium Calendas (so also other writers under the Empire, 

1 But H. 5. 7 elaaicovcrOds diro Trjs ev\apda$ cannot be so taken ' heard (and 
freed) from his fear,' especially as ei)Xa/3. 12. 28 rather denotes the fear of God 
(cp. evXapelo-dcu 11. 7, eiiKa^rjs A. 2. 5 etc.) ; therefore render 'on account of his 
piety,' cp, p. 125. 

§ 40. 5-7.] WITH GENITIVE. 127 

see Kiihner Gr. II. 2 288, W. Schmidt de Josephi elocut. 513, and 
cp. /xerox § 42, 3, and diro in the reckoning of distance supra 3). 

6 4 Quasi-prepositions with genitive. 'For the sake of is ^v€K€v, 
also dv€K€v § 6, 4, eVeKtt A. 26. 21 (Attic, § 6, 1) in Paul's speech 
before Agrippa, also L. 6. 22 (-ev D al.), Mt. 19. 8 O.T. kBLZ (lxx. 
-ev), A. 19. 32 kAB, Mc. 13. 9 B. Not frequent (some 20 instances, 
including quotations) ; it denotes the cause or motive which is given 
for an action, so regularly eVe/cev e/xov in the Gospels, elsewhere it is 
hardly distinguishable from S«£ with accus., see §42, 1 ; its position 
(which in Attic is quite unrestricted) is always before the genitive 
except in the case of an interrogative (twos htKev A. 19. 32) or a 
relative sentence (ov elvtKev L. 4. 18 O.T.). Xdpw is still rarer 
(almost always placed after the word).— ' Except,' 'without,' is 
usually x<°pk; dv€V ( also Attic) on ly appears in Mt. 10. 29, 1 P. 
3. 1, 4. 9 ; #T€p (poetical : in prose not before imperial times) only 
in L. 22. 6, 35 (often in Hermas, e.g. Sim. v. 4. 5 ; Barn. 2. 6 C, but 
avev ») ; ir\i\v (Attic) A. 8. 1, 15. 28, 27. 22, Mc. 12. 32, 'Jo. 7 8. 10. 
The position of these words (as also of those that follow) is always 
before the case, except in one ex. ov x<»pfe H. 12. 4, § 80, 4; x« as 
adverb (often in Attic) only appears in Jo. 20. 7. — 'Unto ' is dxpt(s), 
jjl€'xp«.(s) as in Attic (on the s see § 5, 4), the former in La, Acts, Paul, 
Hebrews, Ap., Mt. 24. 38 : the latter in Mt. 11. 23, 13. 30 (f©s BD), 
28. 15 (K*D ews), Mc. 13. 30 (ecos D), and sporadically in Lc, Acts, 
Paul, Hebrews; both are also used as conjunctions (in an inter- 
mediate stage with the interposition of a relative, dxpi ov, p. ov ; 
Herm. Vis. iv. 1. 9 ^. ore «*, fi. orov K c as), see § 65, ^ 10; 78, 3; 
&os is also employed in this sense, originally a conjunction through- 
out (its use as a prep, appears in Hellenistic Gk. and the lxx.), 
Mt. I.17 diro 'Afipaafji ecus AaviS, ecos tov XpccrTov etc. (often in Mt., 
also in Mc, Lc, Acts, rare in Paul and James; in Hebr. only in 
quotations ; John uses none of the three words); here also we have 
eco? ov, eo)s otov. "Ews is moreover readily joined with an adverb : 
ews 7t6t€, a7ro avwQev ecos /carto, ecus dpTi, ecus cr^/zeooi/, on the other 
hand ayjot (^XP L ) T0 " vv * v > Tf i s <rrjfiepov (although Thuc. 7. S^ has 
/xex/ot o^e). It occasionally has the meaning 'within': A. 19. 26 D 
<ews 'E<£ecrov, 23. 23 (/3 text) ecus zkoitov. Herm. Mand. iv. 1. 5 &XP L 
ttjs dyvocas ovx dfiapTavec means 'as long as he does not know' 
(d^/cus dv dyvorj = a. dv yvco ' until '). 

7. 'Before' (in local sense, rarely rrpo, supra 5) is expressed by 

gfjnrpoo-Ocv, IvavTiov (^vavri, Karevavn, dirkvavTi), Ivc&mov (KaTevojiriov). 
Of these expressions efnrpocrdev and kvavTiov with the genitive are 
also classical, and in the case of evavTiov the construction with the 
genitive is also the predominant use of the word, whereas epLirpoo-dev 
is more frequently adverbial; dirkvavTi is Hellenistic (Polyb.) ; 
€V(07nov (eV-w7r. before the eyes : t<x ei/coVta is as old as Homer), 
KaT€V(07riov (/caTcvcoTTa or /car' eVtoVa Horn.), evavTi 1 (evavTa Horn.), 
KaTevavTi (/careVavTa in poetry) all take their origin from the lxx. 

l '"EivavTi occurs in inscriptions in translations of Roman senatus consulta, 
Viereck Sermo graecus Senat. Rom. (Gtg. 1888) p. 16, 66. 

128 PREPOSITIONS [§ 40. 7-8. 

and are foreign to profane authors even at a later date than the 
N.T., 1 while the N.T. 1 on the other hand has not got dvriKpv(s) 
(except in A. 20. 15 d. Xlov) Karavr. dwavT. The expressions serve 

as a rendering for the Hebrew ^t??, ^.?3, also for "IM, and 'ipirpo- 
o-dev and Ivavriov also frequently stand in the N.T. in places where 
classical Greek would express itself in a simpler manner. Thus 
Mt. 7. 6 /a?) /3d\rjT€ rovs papyaptras vpu>v tpirpoo-Oev twj/ ^ot/owi/== 
class, /x^ Trpo/3a\r)T€ t. /*. Tots Ripens. "Epirpoo-6ev is also apparently 
used of time = 7rp6 (so in class. Greek), in Jo. 1. 15, 30 (or of pre- 
cedence = has obtained the precedence of me ?) ; in adverbial sense 
only in L. 19. 4, 28, Ph. 3. 14, Ap. 4. 6 ; it is employed by well- 
nigh all writers (not Pet., James, Jude, Hebr.), most frequently by 
Mt. 'Evavriov occurs in Mc. 2. 12 ACD (al. c/«r/>.), L. 1. 8 kAC al 
(evavrt BDE al.), 20. 26, 24. 19 (ei/owrioi/ D), A 7. 10 (eVavrt »), 
8. 32 O.T.; eVai/Tt is further used in 8. 21 (evwzrtoi/ EHLP) ; Kark- 
vavrt a7r€i/. (where the readings often vary) Mt. 21. 2, 27. 24 etc., 
A. 3. 16, 17. 7, B. 3. 18 O.T., 4. 17 (adverb L. 19. 30); hwnov is 
frequent in Luke (in the first half of the Acts ; in the second half it 
is only found in 19. 9, 19, 27. 35) and in the Apocalypse : in John 
only in 20. 30, 1 Jo. 3. 22, 3 Jo. 6 : in Mt. and Mc. never (Karzv&ir. 
in a few passages of Paul and in Jude). — ' Before ' in the strictly 
local sense is generally expressed by epirpoo-Oev alone (the word has 
only this sense in the Apoc.) : Ipirp. rov j3rjparos A. 18. 17, 7w 
ttoScoi/ Ap. 19. 10 (B evto-n-Lov), 22. 8 (A Trpo), although the author of 
the Apoc. also says kvuiriov rov dpovov; similarly 'before anyone' 
is 'ipirpoo-Oev Jo. 3. 28, 10. 4 (iviowiov L. 1. 76 fr*B) ; 'ipirp. Ivavriov 
kvisytriov express l before anyone ' = before the eyes of anyone, also 
pleasing in anyone's eyes = ' to anyone,' A. 6. 5 tfpeo-ev evuirtov rov 
7rXrj6ovs==T^7rXrjO€L, 1 Jo. 3. 22 rot dpecrrd kvunriov avrov ; dpaprdvetv 
€V(07r. rtvos — ets tlvol L. 15. 1 8, 21 (1 Sam. 7. 6), or nvi, LXX. 
Judges 11. 27, Buttm. p. 150; so a genitive or dative is often 
replaced by this circumlocution, Mt. 18. 24 ovk lo-nv OeXrjpa ep- 
irpoo-dtv rov warpos pov, where Ip-nrp. might be omitted, 11. 26, 
L. 15. 10 Xapa yweTU- 1 zv&ttiov 7W dyyeXoyv — tmv dyyeXuv or rois 
dyyeXots, 24. 11 effadvrjcrav kv&iriov avrtov wcret Xrjpos = avrois, etc. 
Similar is H. 4. 13 d<f>avr]s ev^iriov avrov, 13. 21 ; but in the second 
half of the Acts it is only used = class, ivavriov. Karevavrt, dirkvavn 
mean ' over against ' = class, KaravriKpv, Mt. 21. 2, Mc. 12. 41 etc.; 
but are also commonly used = ' before ' like evavriov, kvuiriov, e.g. with 
rov 6\Xov Mt. 27. 24 ; a peculiar usage is direvavrt rcov Soypdrcov 
i contrary to' A. 17. 7 (Ivavria rois Soypacriv or twv Soy par (dv in 
classical Greek). 

8. The opposite of epirpoo-Oev in the local sense is 6m<r0€v ' behind/ 
occurring with genitive only in Mt. 15. 23, Lc. 23. 26, rarely also 
as an adverb ; on the other hand 6m<r« (in the older language the 

1 Cp. Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien (Marburg, 1897), p. 40 f., who gives 
instances from the papyri of an adverbial use of ivdoTnov, in the sense of ' in 
person/ Latin coram; see also Grenfell-Hunt, Pap. ii. 112. 

§ 40. 8-9.] WITH GENITIVE. 1 29 

opposite of 7rpoo-w, for which Attic had iroppia 'far off,' the latter 
form occurring occasionally in N.T.) is found fairly often, usually 
as a preposition, more rarely as an adverb. The prepositional use 
of oTrto-w, which is foreign to profane writers, takes its origin from 
the lxx. (Hebr. ^H£) : epx^Oai ottio-cd twos ' to follow ' (also 
uKoXovOetv ott. Tw. 3 instead of the dative, see § 37, 6), direo-T^cre Aaov 
ottlo-oj avTOV A. 5. 37, cp. 20. 30; even davpd^ew O7rio-o) Ap. 13. 3 
{§ 38, 2, note 2). Somewhat different is epxeo-Oat Sir. r. Mt. 3. u 
etc., 'to come after (or behind) anyone,' in the Baptist's utterance 
about Christ. — The compounds, found already in Attic Greek, 
4ir-dvto ' above ' and {mo-Kara ' underneath ' (used also in Attic with 
the genitive), have a weakened force in the N.T. = 'upon,' ' under' : 

Mt. 5. 14 TToXlS €7rdv(0 OpOVS KeipeVT) = Att. tV SpOVS, L. 8. l6 VTTOKaTUt 

kXwyjs tlQtjo-w = Att. virb kXwtjv ; eVai/co only is used adverbially, 
and this word is also joined with numerals = ' more than,' without 
affecting the case, § 36, 12 (before an adverb Mt. 2. 9 end™ ov r\v to 
Tratdtov, but D here has tov ttcuSiov). — 'Between' is expressed by 
jxeragv (Att.) Mt. 18. 15 etc. (rare); this word is also used adverbially 
in Jo. 4. 31 eV tw /x. = ' meanwhile,' but in the common language 1 
= ' afterwards,' A. 13. 42 els to pLeragv o-dpf3aTov, cp. 23. 24 an 
addition of the /3 text, Barn. 13. 5, Clem. Cor. i. 44. 2. Beside 
jutTagv we have dvd pceo-ov, see § 39, 2 : kv pio-v (eppeo-10) with genitive 
'among,' 'between,' Mt. 10. 16 (B els peo-ov), L. 10. 3 (fiecrov D, 
vide infra), 8. 7 (peo-ov D), 21. 22 etc. = Hebrew TpF? and classical 
ev or els, since ' where ? ' and ' whither ? ' are not distinguished in 
this instance (els pecrov never occurs except as a var. lect. in Mt. 
10. 16 vide supra, 14. 24 D for peo-ov ; but of course we have els to 
peo-ov without a subsequent case). Other equivalents are p^eo-os 
adjective Jo. 1. 26, L. 22. 55 BL (v.l. ev /xeo-o), /act') or p,ecrov adverb 
(cp. modern Greek p.eo-o), Ph. 2. 15 TeKva Oeov p.korov yeveds o-KoXcds, 
L. 10. 3 D, vide supra (adj. or adv. in Mt. 14. 24, L. 8. 7 D). To 
these must be added Ik peo-ov with gen. =1pM Mt. 13. 49 etc. 
= class. !£; Siot peo-ov with gen. (TpFfi) L. 4. 30 SieXOcbv 8td peo-ov 
avTajv = Sid, (see also § 42, 1). 

9. To express a prepositional idea by a circumlocution, the sub- 
stantives irpoa-ajTrov, \dp, o-To>a are employed with the genitive, 
similarly to pbko-ov, in constructions modelled on the Hebrew. 'A™ 
irpoo-wTTov Tw6s = d7r6 or irapd with gen. after verbs signifying 'to 
come' or 'to go,' A. 3. 19, 5. 41 : = the N.T. diro (supra 3) after 'to 
drive out,' 'to hide,' 'to fly' A. 7. 45, Ap. 6. 16, 12. 14, 20. u,= 

'^"Jfl. Upb TrpocrwTroi; Mt. 11. 10 O.T. 0?.??), SO L. 1. 76 («B cvowrtov), 
9. 52, even (in A. 13. 24, a sermon of Paul) irph irpoo-uirov rfjs elo-68ov 
avTov 'before (in advance of) him.' Ka/ra Trpoo-uirov = coram is also 
a recognised usage in profane writers, and in this sense is correctly 
employed in A. 25. 16 (without a gen.); elsewhere as in 3. 13 Kara 
7rp6o-a)7rov UcXdrov, L. 2. 31 Kara 7rp. iravrcov rwv Xacov it corresponds 

1 In this sense it is found in Plut. Moral. 240 b and Josephus. 

I3 o PREPOSITIONS [§ 40. 9, § 41. 1, 

to the Hebr. h ?.s?SL; similarly els 7rp. nvos 2 C. 8. 24 (els irp. without 
case, and with els in place of ev, Herm. Yis. iii. 6. 3). — Xeip : els 
Xeipas ("P?) twos TrapaStSovai, 'into anyone's power/ 'to anyone ' 
Mt. 26. 45 etc., L. 23. 46, Jo. 13. 8, H. 10. 31 (ep.Treo-eiv els x- Oeov, 

cp. Polyb. 8, 20. 8 virb ras iw eydpwv X- ir'nrreiv ; viroyelptos) ; for 
which is substituted ev rfj ^. SeSw/cei/ (Ji> for els, § 41, 1) in Jo. 3. 35. 
'Ei/ (<rvv ABODE) x«/ot ayyeAox;A. 7. 35 (cp. Gr. 3. 19) "PS, 'through/ 
' by means of.' 'Ek x €t /°os nvos ' out of the power of anyone ' ("TO) 
L. 1. 71, A. 12. 11 e^eiXaro fie e/c x- 'Hp^Sov, cp. in classical Gk. 
Aesch. 3. 256 €K tojv xeLpQv e^eXea-Oat tcov ^lXlttttov (here used as a 
stronger and more vivid expression), etc. Aid x e£ /°os, &<x t<3i> x €L P^ v 
= 8id 'through/ 'by means of Mc. 6. 2 and frequently in Acts 
(2. 23, 5. 12 etc.), of actions; 8ta o-TdjiaTos, on the other hand, is 
used of speeches which Cod puts into the mouth of anyone, L. 1. 70, 
A. 1. 16 etc. Further, for Xoyoi ol diro nvos or twos the fuller and 
more vivid ol etaropevopievoi £k (8id) orrofji. nvos is used in Mt. 4. 4 
O.T. =lxx. Deut. 8. 3, L. 4. 22 etc.; for aKovecv nvos we have ck. 
e/c (a7ro, 6\<x) rod err. nvos L. 22. 71, A. 1. 4 D, E. 4. 29 etc.; cp. 
L. 11. 54 Oiqpevcrai ri Ik t. err. avroi;, a word from him; €7ri o~ro pharos 
'on the assertion of Mt. 18. 16, and many similar exx.; o-To/xa was 
moreover utilized in classical Greek to coin many expressions of this 
kind. 'Ek o-ropLaros can also mean 'out of the jaws/ 2 Tim. 4. 17. 
— On 686v as preposition (versus) Mt. 4. 15 see § 34, 8, note 1. 


1. 'Ev is the commonest^ all prepositions in the N.T., notwith- 
standing the fact that some writers (§ 39, 3) occasionally employ els 
instead of it. (The reverse change, namely, the misuse of ev for els, 
can only be safely asserted to take place in a very few cases in the 
N.T. Thus ev /xeo-a) is used in answer to the question 'whither?', 
§ 40, 8 ; compare also elo-rjXOe SmAoytcr/xb? ev avrois L. 9. 46 ' came 
into them/ ' into their hearts ' [see next verse] : Kare/Satvev ev rfj 
KoXvpi/3r)8pa in a spurious verse Jo. 5. 4 [Herm. Sim. i. 6 dweXOys ev 
rfj TroXei crov, Clem. Horn. i. 7, xiv. 6]." But e£r\X6ev 6 Xoyos ev rfj 
TovSatct L. 7. 17 [cp. 1 Th. 1. 8] means 'was spread abroad in J/; 
in Ap. 11. 11 elo-rjXOev ev avrois is only read by A, avrots CP, els 
avrovs kB; classical authors can use ev with rtOevat and to-rdvac, and 
with this may be compared 8l86voll ['to lay'] ev rfj x ei P^ tivos Jo. 3. 35 
[§ 40, 9 ; Clem. Cor. i. 55. 5 irapeScoKev } OXo(f>epvrjv ev X ei P^ OrjXetas], 
or ev rfj KapSia. 2 C. 1. 22, 8. 16 ; no conclusive evidence can be 
drawn from the metaphorical usage in L. 1. 17 ev cfrpovrjo-ei Slkollcdv, 
with the meaning ' so that they have the wisdom ' ; i<aXelv ev elprjvyj 
and similar phrases). — The use of ev receives its chief extension 
through the imitation of Hebrew constructions with St. Under this 
head comes its instrumental employment, § 38, 1 ; also its use to 
indicate the personal agent : ev tw dpxovri (through) twv SaipLoviuv 

1 v. App. p. 330. a v. App. p. 313. 

§ 4i. 1-2.] WITH DA TIVE. z 3 T 

€K/3d\\,€L rd SaifjLovLa Mt. 12. 24 (9. 24), Kplveiv tyjv olKovpevrjv kv 
dvSpi A. 17. 31 (1 C. 6. 2). x In the same way no doubt is to be 
explained its use to express the motive : A. 7. 29 e^vyev M<Dvo-fjs kv 
tw \6yu) tovto) 'on account of (DE have another reading k<f>vyd8evcrev 
Moovcrfjv kv 'with'): Mt. 6. 7 kv ty) iroXvXoyia avrcov elcraKOvo-Orjo-ovrai : 
kv tovto) 'on this account' A. 24. 16, Jo. 16. 30: kv § 'since/ 
'because ' a H. 2. 18, or 'on which account' 6. 17; to the same 
category belongs the use of kv with verbs expressing emotion, e.g. 
Xatpetv, § 38, 2. Another instance of instrumental kv is Ap. 5. 9 
r)y6pa<ras kv rco aiparl crov, cp. A. 20. 28 ; this phrase kv ra> atfiaTt 
(rod Xp.) is found in various connections in St. Paul and other 
writers (K. 3. 25, 5. 9 etc.), where the very indefinite and colourless 
meaning of kv does not help to determine the sense more accurately. 
On kvSedvpevos kv and similar phrases see § 34, 6, note 2 ; on kv of 
accompaniment (with 'army' etc.) § 38, 3. Of manner (vide ibid.): 
kv Ta^et (class.) L. 18. 8 etc., Kplveiv kv tiiKaioo-vvy = 8iKaLQ)$ A. 17. 31, 
Ap. 19. 11, kv Trdcry dcr<paXeta = dcr^aXecrrara A. 5. 23, kv (irdcrr)) 
irapprjcria 'freely,' 'openly' etc. Again dvOpojiros kv Trvevparc 
aKaddpro) Mc. 1. 23, 5. 2 5 must mean 'with, an unclean spirit ' = e'xwv 
Trvevfxa aKaO. (3. 30 etc.), although a passage like E. 8. 9 vpets Se ovk 
4(tt€ kv crapKi dXX' Iv irvev\Lari y etwep irvevpa Oeov oIkci ev v\uv' el Se Tt? 
TTvev/jia Xptcrrov ovk '<fx €L K ' T '^- is calculated to show the constant 
fluctuation of the meanings of kv and of the conceptions of the rela- 
tion between man and spirit. Another phrase with an extremely 
indefinite meaning is kv XpiorrQ) (Kvplo)), which is attached again and 
again in the Pauline Epistles to very different ideas. 

2. Occasionally kv appears to stand for the ordinary dative proper. 

1 C. 14. 11 ecropLOLL tw XaXovvri, ('for the speaker') f3dp{3apos, /cat 6 
XaXQv Iv IjjloI 2 pdpftapos 'for me,' instead of kfioi, which Paul avoided 
because it might have been taken with AaAwv. Cp. G. 1. 16 
dwoKaXvx^ai rbv vlov avrov kv kpoi 'to me ,c ('in me,' i.e. 'in my spirit' 
would be an unnatural phrase) ; in 2 C. 4. 3 kv tois diroXXvpkvo is kcrrl 
KeKaXvppkvov 'for'^is a better rendering than 'among'; e 2 C. 8. 1 
rr)v ydptv tyjv SeSopbevrjv kv rats eKKXrfo-iais rrjs Mock., cp. A. 4. 12 
where D omits the kv ; but 1 Jo. 4. 9 kv tovtco kcfravepuOr] rj dydnrr) 
tov Oeov kv rjpiv means ' towards us,' and is like Troielv ev tlvl, yivecrOaL 
ev tlvl, where moreover either the dative or els can stand, § 34, 4. — 
'Ei/ has the meaning of 'in' or 'by' with iiavddveiv 1 C. 4. 6, 
ywucTKeiv L. 24. 35 etc. (likewise classical); but we also find yiv. €k 
L. 6. 44 etc., Kara tl 1. 18. For ' to swear by ' opivvvai kv see § 34, 1 
(instead of the accus.) ; for opoXoyelv ev tlvl 'to profess allegiance to 
anyone' (a Syriac expression) Mt. 10. 32, L. 12. 8, for which an 
accus. or two accusatives may be used, see § 34, 5. 'Ev pLvo-rypto) 
XaXovpev aro<ptav 1 C. 2. 7 = c as a mystery ' (so in classical Greek). 
On kv in temporal sense see § 38, 4. 

1 In R>. 11. 12 iv 'H\ta \e7et 77 ypa<pr} might be interpreted in the same way, c by 
Elias,' cp. iv r£ 'tiarje 9. 25, iv Aavld H. 4. 7, kv irepcp 7rpocpr}Tr} \eyei Barn. 6. 14. 
But others class these with iv rep vbjjiup and the like. 

2 V. App. p. 330. abode v# App. p. 313. 

132 PREPOSITIONS [§ 41. 3, § 42. 1. 

3. 2\>v in classical Attic is limited to the sense of 'including,' 
whereas ' with ' is expressed by //-era ; but the Ionic dialect and 
afterwards the Hellenistic language kept the old word crvv in addition 
to /zcTa, and it is consequently found in the N.T., although very 
unequally employed by the different authors, and only occurring 
with any frequency in Luke (Gospel and Acts) and Paul, while it is 
unrepresented in the Apocalypse and the Epistles of John, and 
almost unrepresented in his Gospel. 1 There is scarcely anything 
noteworthy in the way in which it is employed. 2w iracri tovtols is 
'beside all this' (lxx., Josephus, see W.-Gr.) L. 24. 21. On a/m and 
crvv see § 37, 6. 


1. Aid with accusative, local 'through' (poetical) only in L. 17. n 
Sir/pxero 8cd fiecrov (**BL, D omits Sia, § 40, 8 ; A al. Std fiecrov) 
^Zafiapdas kclI TaAtAatas, an inadmissible reading; elsewhere 'on 
account of,' denoting not only motive and author, but also (what in 
classical Greek is expressed by eVe/ca) aim, 2 so that the modern Greek 
meaning 'for' is already almost in existence : Mc. 2. 27 rb craft fiarov 
S10I rbv avOpcoirov kykvero /cat ov)^ o dvOp. Sia, rb crdftftarov, Jo. 11. 42, 
12. 30, 1 0. 11. 9 etc. — With genitive 'through' of place, time, and 
agent as in classical Greek. The temporal 8 id also expresses an 
interval of time that has elapsed : Si' eiw irXeiovcov ' after several 
years' A. 24. 17, G. 2. 1 ;*and further (not classical) the period of 
time within which something takes place : A. 1. 3 St' f){j,ep<Dv reo-o-epd- 
Kovra oTTTavo/jLevos clvtols ' during forty days ' (not continuously, but 
at intervals, as was already noticed by the Scholiast following 
Chrysostom), 5 Sia. wktos per nodem ' at night ' (class, wktos, vvKriop), 
A. 5. 19 etc.; L. 9. 37 D Sia, rfjs fj/mepas 'in the course of the day.' 
Instead of the agent, the author may also be denoted by Si a (as in 
Aeschylus Agam. 1486 Siai Aiog iravairiov iravepykra) : R. 11. 36 !£ 
avTov (source) /cat 8t y avrov (the Creator) Kal ei? avrbv rd iravra, cp. 
H. 2. 10 St' ov (God) t<x Trdvra koX 8l ov Tot 7r., 1 C. 1. 9, G. 1. i 3 (but 
the use is different in 1 C. 8. 6 eis 6ebs 6 7rarr)p, eg ov rd irdvra kolI 
rjfxds €is avrov, Kal eh Kvpios T. X., Si' ov [ov B] rd irdvra Kal 97/xei? Si' 
avrov, cp. Jo. 1. 3 ; Mt. 1. 2 2 rb prjOev faro Kvpiov 81a rod 7rpo<p^rov, etc.). 
— Indicating mode and manner, Si<x Xoyov ' by way of speech,' 'orally' 
A. 15. 27 ; also the circumstances in which a man is placed in doing 
anything: R. 2. 27 6 Si<x ypdfxpbaros Kal TrepLTO/JLrjs Trapaftdrys vojxov, 
'who has the written statute withal/ 14. 20 Siot it poo- k6 pharos eo-OUiv 

1 See Tycho Mommsen's book, Beitrage zu d. Lehre v. d. gr. Prapositionen 
(Berlin, 1895), where on page 395 the statistics of <r&> and perti in the N.T. are 
concisely given. In John crfo occurs in 12. 2, 18. 1, 21. 3 (only in 21. 3 with- 
out v.l.: perti very frequently) ; in Paul it is absent from 2 Th., 1 and 2 Tim., 
Tit., Philem.; as it is also from Hebr. and 1 Pet. [For the distinction between 
cvv and juLerd see also Westcott's note on Jo. 1. 2. Tr.] 

2 Cp. Hatzidakis Einl. in d. ngr. Gramm. 212 f. 

3 It stands for virb with a passive verb in Herm. Sim. ix. 14. 5, Vis. iii. 13. 3. 

a b v. App. p. 313. 

§ 42. 1-3.] WITH TWO CASES, 1 33 

' with offence/ Sia ttoXX&v 6\xkoiW 2 C. 2. 4 : also undoubtedly 6V 

dcrOevetas (not -ei/eiav) evrjyyeXtcrdfjLrju vpuv G. 4. 13 'in sickness/ as 
the Yulgate per (not propter) infirmitatem. 1 — In a peculiar use in an 
urgent petition = ' by ' (Attic Trpos twos): B,. 12. 1 irapaKaXQ> v/xds &id 
rcov oiKTipfxQ)v rov Oeov, 15. 30, 1 C. 1. 10 and elsewhere in the Pauline 
Epp. (cp. Kara rtvos infra 2); but E. 12. 3 Xeyco Bid rrjs xdpiros — is 
'in virtue of (15. 15 Sid rr)v x&pw 'because of). 

2. Kara with accusative occurs frequently and in various senses, 
but in general these agree with the classical uses. As the use of 
Kara with accus. as a circumlocution for a genitive occurs frequently 
in the Hellenistic language (r) Kara rov r)Xiov iropeia 'the course of 
the sun'), so in the N.T. one may adduce : A. 18. 15 vopov rov Ka6* 
vp.ds 'the law in force with you, your law,' cp. 26. 3, 17. 28, E. 1. 15 
rr)v KaO' vp,d$ iricrriv, A. 16. 39 D to Katf vfxas — rb I'/xerepov 7r/Day/xa, 
and R. 1. 15 rb Kar ifxe 7rp66vfJL0V = r) e/mr) 7rpo6vfJLia 1 (but it is better 
to take to Kar' e/xe as quod in me est, and then read TrpodvpLos with 
Lat. and Origen and supply dpi, § 30, 3 ; cp. rb Kara o-dpKa 9. 5 and 
other phrases, § 34, 7). — The distributive Kard a has become stereo- 
typed as an adverb (cp. dvd, § 39, 2) in Ka6' efs, see § 51, 5. — In the 
headings to the Gospels Kara MarOacov etc. the author of this 
particular form of the Gospel is denoted by Kara, cp. § 35, 3 ; with 
this is compared (W.-Gr.) r) 7raAata BiaOr^K-q Kara rovs £f3$ojj.r)KOvra y 
and 2 Mace. 2. 13 rots viroixv^piar tor jxo is rots Kara Neepav, which 
perhaps means ' which bear the name of N.' 

With the genitive the instances are far less numerous ; Kara rtvo? 
most often means ' against someone ' in a hostile sense, and indeed 
in the Hellenistic language it also takes the place of Attic im nva 
(kcrriv and the like) : Mt. 12. 30 6 fir) wv fxer 1 ejmov Kar 7 ejnov hjriv 
(Demosth. 19. 339 Itt\ rr)v ttoXlv io-riv, but Polyb. 10, 8. 5 Kara rrjs 
7roAecos vireXdfjL^avov etvat), whereas the Attic Kara ' against ' is used 
after verbs of speaking, witnessing etc. — Rarely in local sense : /caret 
rov Kp7]/jLVov Mt. 8. 32 etc. 'down from 7 ; Kara K€<f>aXrjs e'^wv 1 C. 11. 4, 
opposed to aKaraKaXvirro) rfj K^aXrj ('hanging down over the head/ 
'on the head') ; 'throughout' A. 9. 31 Ka9' 6Xr]s rrjs 7 Iov8a[as, 10. 37, 
L. 4. 14, 23. 5 (Hellenistic, Polyb. 3, 19. 7 Scecnrdprjo-av Kara rrjs 
vrjerov), in this sense always with oAos and confined to Luke's Gospel 
and Acts (with accus. ol ovres Kara rr)v 'lovSatav A. 11. 1, it means 
simply 'in'). A peculiar use is r) Kara /3d0ovs A-rar^ta 2 C. 8. 2 'deep' 
or 'profound poverty' (Strabo 9, p. 419 dvrpov koiXov Kara jSdQovs, 
W.-Gr.). — For its use with d/xvwat, \k£)opKi£eiv Mt. 26. 63, H. 6. 13, 16, 
see § 34, 1 (Kara rov Kvplov -qpurrjo-a ' entreated by the Lord ' Herm. 
Vis. iii. 2. 3). 

3. Mcrd with accusative in local sense 'after/ 'behind' only 
occurs in H. 9. 3 fxerd rb Sevrepov KarairkracrpLa (answering to 717)0, an 
un classical use); elsewhere it always has temporal sense 'after/ 
Ov /xera 7roAAas ravras fj/j-tpas A. 1. 5 is 'not many days after to-day/ 
cp. 7rp6, § 40, 5. — McTcl with genitive has to itself (and not in com- 

1 [Still no Greek ms. has the genitive in this passage. See Lightfoot ad loc. 
Tr.] «v. App. p. 313. 

r 34 PREPOSITIONS [§ 42. 3-4. 

mon with o-vv) the meaning of ' among/ 'amid,' /jcto, twi/ v<u<pQ>v 
L. 24. 5, /xerot i£vo>(ov eXoy'icrOr) (Mc. 15. 28) L. 22. 37, O.T. (Hebr. 
t\% lxx. Ii/), as in classical poets ; in the sense of 'with' it is inter- 
changed with o-vv, § 41, 3, but with this limitation that with expres- 
sions which imply mutual participation, such as iroXepelv, elpr^veveiv, 
(rvfKpoivelv, cfriXos, XaXelv (Mc. 6. 50 etc.) and others (§ 37, 6), perd 
Ttvos and not o-vv tlvl is used in place of or by the side of the 
simple dative (Hebr. DJ7, class, dative or irpos); it is likewise the only 
preposition used to express accompanying circumstances, /xera <f>6fiov 
etc., § 3, 3 (class.), and in the sense of 'to' (Hebraic) in iroielv eXeos 
/xem twos L. 10. 37, cp. 1. 58 (Herm. Sim. v. 1. 1 even has irepl 
7ravro)v Sv eirotrjo-e /xer efjiov 'to me,' which differs from the use of the 
phrase in A. 14. 27 where /xera = ' with '). On the whole the use of 
fierd far outweighs that of o-vv (the number of instances of the former 
word is nearly three times that of the latter), though in individual 
books o-vv has equally strong or even stronger attestation (in Acts). 

4. IIcpC with accusative (not very frequent) is used in local and 
temporal sense for 'about'; so ol irepl avrov Mc. 4. 10, L. 22. 49 
= 'his disciples'; but ol irepl ILavXov A. 13. 13, as is the case with 
similar phrases in the literary language, includes Paul; we even 
have irpbs rds irepl MdpOav /cat Mapiav Jo. 11. 19 A al. (as often in 
later writers) to denote Martha and Mary only, but the phrase can 
hardly be considered genuine; 1 it has a further use, which is also 
classical, to denote the object of the action or of the pains expended 
(not the subject of speech or thought, which is irepi rivos), with 
eiriOvpLiai Mc. 4. 19 (om. D), with irepiorTrdcrdai, Tvpfid^evOaL L. 10. 40 £, 
with epydrcu A. 19. 25. Paul, who only began to use irepi nva at the 
time of writing the Philippian epistle, uses it generally for 'concern- 
ing' (something like Plato's irovqpbv irepl to crw/xa, 'injurious with 
regard to'): Ph. 2. 23 rot irepl l/ze, 1 Tim. 1. 19 irepl tyjv iria-riv 
evavdyrjcrav, 6. 4, 21, 2 Tim. 2. 18, 3. 8, Tit. 2. 7 (rd irepl rov irvpyov 
Herm. Vis. iii. 3. 1). 

IIcpC with genitive (extremely common) most often in such phrases 
as 'to speak,' 'know,' 'have a care' etc., 'concerning' or 'about'; 
at the beginning of a sentence or paragraph ' as concerning ' 1 C. 7. 1 
etc. (class.); also 'on account of (class.) with KpivevBai, eyKaXelv, 
evyapivTeiv, epayrdv (entreat), Setcr#ai 5 irpocrevyev 6 'at, irp6<pao-LV (an 
excuse) e^etv, alvelv etc., in which cases it often passes over to the 
meaning of 'for' and becomes confused with virep : Jo. 17. 9 ov irepl 
rov Kocr/jLov IpwTw, dXXd irepl <Sv SeSwKas /xot. It is used as absolutely 
equivalent to virep in Mt. 26. 28 to irepl (D virep) iroXX&v Iky^ '- 
fxevov (in Mc. 14. 24 irepi is only read by A al.), 1 C. 1. 13 eo-ravpcoOr} 
irepl vfJLWV only BD* (al. V7rep\ A. 26. I irepl (tfAC al.; virep BLP) 
creavrov Aiyeii/, Gr. 1. 4 (virep K C B), H. 5. 3 KaOws irepl eavTOV, ovrm 
kolI irepl rov Xaov irpoo-cjiepeiv irepl (virep C C D C al. as in ver. 1) dfiapriiov, 

cp. 10. 6, 8 O.T., 18, 26, 13. 11, 1 P. 3. 18, Mc. 1. 44, L. 5. 14. 

1 Hpbs rV M. koX M. KBC*L al., similarly without ttjv T> ; tva irapafjLvd7)<juvTcu 
tt]v M. kcl\ tt]p M. Syr. Sin. 

§ 42. 4-6.] WITH TWO CASES. 1 35 

With verbs expressing emotion : Mt. 9. 36 lairXayyv to-Orj irepl 
glvtwv (i.e. twv 6'xAco]/; elsewhere the verb has e7rt nva or eirl tlvl, 
§§ 36, 7; 43, 1 and 3), Mt. 20. 24 and Mc. 10. 41 dyavaKTelv irepl 
tlvos, l concerning anyone ' (classical G-reek has irepl twv irpax@evT<x)v 
Plat. Ep. vii. 349 d), L. 2. 18 OavpLdfav irepl ('concerning a thing'), 
■all these constructions hardly classical ; irepl iravrwv evoSovo-Oai 
'•in every respect ; 3 Jo. 2. Iloirjo-ai irepl avrov (' to do with him ') 
L. 2. 27 also appears to be an incorrect phrase (irepl onrroV would be 
better, vide supra, N.T. says avTy or lv avru) ; Xay xdveLv (' to draw 
lots') irepi tlvos Jo. 19. 24 may be compared with the classical 

jAayecrQai irepl tlvos. 

5. 'Yra'p with accusative "(not frequent) 'above,' denotes superi- 
ority (no longer found in local sense) ; 6 hence it is used with the com- 
parative, § 36, 12 ; it is used adverbially in the Pauline epistles virep 

Xlav (or virepXlav§§ 4, 1; 28, 2) 2 C. 11. 5, 12. 11 virep Ik irepLcrcrov or 
virepeKTr. 1 Th. 3. 10, E. 3. 20, similarly or virep eKirepLo-alos (BD*FG) 
1 Th. 5. 13 ; or it stands by itself 2 C. 11. 23 Slolkovol XpLo-Tov elcnv ; 
virep (to a higher degree) eyto (Slolk. Xp. dpi), cp. the classical words 
virepXa/jiirpos, wepe^a/ao-y/Atot ([Demosth.] 59. 89), whereas in the 
jN'.T. it is impossible in all cases to carry out the compounding of 
the two words into one. — 'Yvip with genitive ' for/ opposed to Kara 
tlvos Mc. 9. 40 etc., is much limited in its use by the substitution of 
irepl (supra 4), while the reverse change (XeyeLv virep 'to speak 
about ') which is common in Attic and Hellenistic Greek (as also in 
the lxx.), is found more rarely and is almost confined to Paul : Jo. 1 . 30 
virep 0$ (irepl ov K C A al. c ) elirov, 2 C. 8. 23 ehe virep Tltov ('as 
concerning,') 12. 8 virep tovtov irapeKaXeo-a ('on this account/ 'on 
behalf of this/ cp. supra 4 irepi), 2 Th. 2. 1, Kav\ao-6aL virep often in 
Paul, also <j)VcrLovo-6aL virep, c^povelv virep (in Ph. 1. 7 ' to think upon/ 
in 4. 10 'to care for'). Also the object to be attained may be. 
introduced by virep, 2 C. 1. 6 virep ttjs v/jlIJov irapaKXrjcretoS ('to'); so 
also Ph. 2. 13 virep (<ov>1) ttjs evSoiaas (God's; C adds avTOv) 
irdvTa iroieLTe (the first words are not to be taken with the preceding 

6. c Ytto with accusative (not very frequent; in John only in 
1. 49 of his Gospel, never in the Apocalypse 2 ) ' under/ answering 
the questions ' where ? ' and ' whither ? ' (the old local use of viro 
tlvos and viro tlvl has become merged in viro tl), is used in literal and 
metaphorical sense; in temporal sense only in A. 5. 21 viro tov 
opOpov, sub, circa (class.). 2 — 'Y^o with genitive 'by/ denoting the agent, 
is used with passive verbs and verbs of passive meaning like irXrjy as 
XapftdveLv 2 C. 11. 24 ; 3 in some instances its place is taken by 
dwo, § 40, 3; see also Sid, supra 1. 

1 The Apoc. has vttok&tu (§ 40, 8) instead, which is also found in John's 
Gospel 1. 51. 

2 Herm. often uses fab %e?/>a in a peculiar way 'continually,' Vis. iii. 10. 7, 
v. 5. 5, Mand. iv. 3. 6. 

3 Herm. has the peculiar phrases in Sim. ix. 1. 2 viro irapdevov idpaicas and 
tiirb dyyeXov fiXe'-ireis f under the guidance of ' — ' the angel makes you to see/ cp. 
Ap. 6. 8 airoKTelvcu kv ... koX virb rQ>v 6rjpioov-iroi.T)(raL airoOavelv viro k.t.X. 

a b c v. App. p. 313. 

136 PREPOSITIONS [§43.1-2. 


1. 'EirC is the single preposition the use of which with all three 
cases is largely represented. The case, however, which it takes 
with far the most frequency is the accusative. This is used not 
only, as in classical Greek, in answer to the^question Whither? 
(including such constructions as that with o-Trjvat, where els may 
take the place of hrt, § 39, 3), but also not infrequently as a sub- 
stitute for genitive or dative, in answer to the question Where ? : 
Mt. 9. 2 (Mc. 2. 14, L. 5. 27) KaOrjfJLevos 67tl to re\<x>VLOV, Mc. 4. 38 eirl 
to 7rpo<TK€<f)d\aLOV (D eirl tt pod KecjxiXaiov) KadevStov, L. 2. 25 wvevfia 
ay toy r\v err olvtov, cp. 40 (where D has ev airn£), Jo. 1. 32 e^eivev €7r' 
a-uTov (33), A. 1. 15 eVt to avTo 'together' (so fairly often in Acts, 
and occas. in Paul and elsewhere, used with etvcu etc.; lxx. Joseph. 1 *), 

2 0. 3. 15 €7Tt TTJV Kaphiav aVTUV K6LTCU, A. 21. 35 tyeVCTO €7Tt tovV 

avaftaOfAovs, cp. ycveorOai els § 39, 3 (but eVt tivos L. 22. 40), Mt. 
14. 25 TrepiTTaroiv eirl tyjv OdXacrorav ttB al., gen. CD al., 26 gen. 
nBOD al., ace. EFGr- al; 28 f. all MSS. eirl tul vSara ; in Mc. 6. 48 f., 
Jo. 6.19 the gen. is used, which in the passage of John some would 
understand as in 21. 1 in the sense of 'by the sea,' although we 
should not use such an expression, but 'on the shore.' Moreover 
with the metaphorical senses of hri the accusative is more widely 
prevalent than it strictly should be : not only do we have Kadio-Tavai 
diKaa-rrjv £<j> vfxas (direction whither?) L. 12. 14, but also f3ao-iXevcrei, 
iirl rhv oIkov 'IaK(oj3 1. 33 (Hebraic, cp. inf. 2, § 36, 8), eirl 6Xiya fjs 

TTtCTTOg, €7Tl 7ToXX(OV CT€ KaTaCTTrjOrO) Mt. 25. 21, CT7rXay)(l£ofJLaL €7Tfc TOV 

oxXov 15. 32, Mc. 8. 2, cp. Herm. Mand. iv. 3. 5, Sim. ix. 24. 2 
(which in Attic must at least have been e-n-l tw...),^ kXolUt* e-rr e/xe 
L. 23. 28, eXiri^eiv, irio-Teveiv 1 , ttlo-tls, TreTTOidevai liri riva or eiri tivl, 
§ 37, 1 alternating with els tlvol (ev tivl), Mc. 9. 12 f. yey pairTaL eirl 
rbv vibv rov dvOpioirov c concerning ' a (Att. prefers eirl tivl). The 
following further instances may be noticed : A. 4. 2 2 6 avOpuiros e<£' 
6V yeyovei to crrjfieiov 'upon' (class, els 6V, Hdt. i. 114, or 7repl ov ; 
cp. also eirl tlvos infra 2) : 10. 35 ireo~o)v eirl tovs 7roSas irpoo-eKVvqcrev, 
= Att. irpoo-irecruiv avrw (Jo. 11. 32 has irpbs with v.l. els, Mc. 5. 22 
7rp6s). In temporal senses : A. 3. 1 iirl tyjv &pav tt)s irpocrevxijs,, 
4. 5 (L. 10. 35) eirl tyjv avptov, more frequently expressed by tjJ 
eir-avptov, denoting the coincidence of an action with a particular 
time, for which classical Greek uses els (eaavpiov); it further denotes 
duration of time as in classical Greek : k<f> rjp.epas irXelovs A. 13. 31 

2. 'EiK with, genitive in the majority of cases means 'upon'' 
(answering the question Where ?), as in eirl ttjs yrjs, eirl kXIvt]s, 
KaOrjfxevos eirl tov dpfiaTos, iirl tov lirirov etc., but also in answer to 
the question Whither % the reverse interchange of meanings taking 
place with eirl with the accus. as was noticed above in 1 : Mc. 4. 26 

1 'Eirco-revo-ai' iirl rbv Ktipiov A. 9. 42, 11. 17 etc. might be compared with 
eiri(7Tpe\j/av eirl rbv k. 9. 35, 11. 21 etc. (direction whither), but we also have 
tovs -KHJTejbovTQ.'i iirl ere A. 22. 19 etc., where this explanation is unsuitable. 

!*v. App. p. 330. a v. App. p. 313. 

§43-2-3.] WITH THREE CASES. 1 37 

fidXrj rbv a-TTopov kirl rrjs yrjs, 9. 20 7reow e7rlrrjs yrjs (acCUS. in Mt. 10. 
29, 34), Mt. 26. 12 etc.; a further meaning is 'at' or 'by,' kirl rrjs 
6$ov Mt. 2 1 . 1 9/ €7rt r^s OaXdoro-rjs Jo. 2 1 . 1 etc. (For the strengthened 
form eVaj/a> 'upon' see § 40, 8.) With persons it means 'before/ 
Mc. 13. 9 iirl rjyefJLOvuv crraOrjo-eo-Oe, A. 25. 9 KplvecrQai kn ifiov 
(ibid. 10 kwl rov PrjfJLaros Katcrapos ecrrcos 'before,' but in 17 KaOcoras 
iirl t. /3. 'upon'), Mt. 28. 14 with aKovorOy (BD -u7ro), 1 Tim. 5. 19 €7r£ 

fiaprvpuv (kirl (rro/xaTos /xa/)T. 2 C. 13. 1, Hebr. 1.? ^"" ?^), cp. infra 3, 
2 C. 7. 14 eTrtTtroi; (v.l. tt/oos TtTor). In metaphorical sense of 'over/ 
of authority and oversight (Attic), it is used not only with etvcu, but 
also with KaOicrrdvac (supra 1), A. 8. 27, E. 9. 5, Mt. 24. 45 etc.; also 
with pao-iXeveiv (cp. supra 1, § 36, 8) Mt. 2. 22 CD al. (kB have the 
simple genitive). 'To do to anyone,' 'to say of anyone': Jo. 6. 2 
a kiroUi kirl rcov dcrOevovvrwv, G. 3. 16 ov Xkyet ... us kirl ttoXXwv k.t.X. 
(as in Plato Charm. 155 I), W.-Gr.); Itt' dXrjOeCas 'in accordance 
with the truth 'Mc. 12. 14 etc. (Demosth. 18. 17 etc.); frequently 
of contemporaneousness (classical) kirl 'Af3id6ap apx^petas Mc. 2. 26 
(om. D al.), Mt. 1. 11, H. 7. 11 and elsewhere/ Paul uses kirl rCov irpo- 
o-evx&v piov meaning 'in,'E. 1. 16 etc.; a Hebraistic use is kir kcrxdrov 
twv fjfiep&v H. 1. 1, cp. 1 P. 1. 20, 2 P. 3. 3, Jude 18, and cp. §47, 2. 

3. 'Ett£ with dative. — When the preposition has a local sense the 
genitive and accusative have the preponderance, and a sharp dis- 
tinction between its use with those cases and with the dative cannot 
be drawn. Answering the question Where ? we have kirl dvpous, kirl 
rfj Ovpa (classical) 'before the door ? Mt. 24. 33, A. 5. 9 etc. (but in 
Ap. 3. 20 the accus.) : kirl irivaKi 'upon' ('upon' in classical Greek 
is generally kirl tifos, Buttm. p. 289) Mt. 14. 8, 11, Mc. 6. 25, 28 : 
in A. 27. 44 gen. and dat. are used interchangeably : eKaOefrro kirl 
rrj TTTjyrj Jo. 4. 6, cp. 5. 2, ' at ' or * by ' : kirl ravrr/ rfj irkrpa (ace. in D 
Euseb.) ocKoSopLTjo-u Mt. 16. 18 (in 7. 24 ff. all MSS. have ace.) : with 
€7TLJ3dXXeiv kiriKelcrQai kiriiriirreLV Mt. 9. 16, Jo. 11. 38 (without kir' 
k* cp. § 37, 7), A. 8. 16 (accus. D* which is on the whole far the 
more frequent construction): k<ft lirirois Ap. 19. 14 (elsewhere always 
expressed by genit.). The dative also intervenes in the metaphorical 
sense 'to set over' (as in classical authors) Mt. 24. 47. Most fre- 
quently kirl Ttvi denotes the ground or reason, especially with verbs 
expressing emotion, such as Oavpidfav, x ai P eiv <> XvireicrOai, fieravoeiv, 
see § 38, 2 (for the accus. supra 1); also with evx^pto-relv, Sogdfav 
rbv Oeov, KpivecrOai (A. 26. 6) ; KaXeiv kirl 'to call after' L. 1. 59 ; £rjv 
kirl Mt. 4. 4 O.T.; apKelo-Oat kirl 3 Jo. 10 ; £<f> f § 'for the reason that,' 
'because' E. 5. 12, 2 C. 5. 4; under this head may be brought 
iraroiQkvai, iricrreveiv, kXirt^etv kirl tlvl, § 37, 1 (beside kirl rtva, supra 1, 
and other constructions), irapp-qo-idfecrOai kirl tw Kvpca) A. 14. 3, unless 
the last instance is to be connected with the common kirl (like kv) t<5 
dvo/xaT6 rivos, § 39, 4. — Expressing addition to (classical) : L. 3. 20, 

16. 26 kirl (kv ttBL) irdon tovtols, cp. E. 6. 16 (kv RBP), Col. 3, 14, 
H. 8. 1 (for which we have accus. in Ph. 2. 27 Xvir-qv kirl Xvir-qv). 
Expressing a condition (classical) : eV kXn i8l E. 8. 20, 1 C. 9. 10, 
Tit. 1. 2 (a different use in A. 2. 26 O.T., E. 4. 18, 5. 2, where it 
rather indicates the reason); cp. H. 8. 6, 9. 10, 15, 17 ; also KaXeiv kir* 

a b v. App. p. 314. 

13 8 PREPOSITIONS [§ 43. 3-6. 

kXtvQepta G. 5. 13, ovk €7r' aKaOapcrta aAA' 4v ayiao-fx^ 1 Th. 4. 7 : 
denoting rather aim, lir epyois dyadofc E. 2. 10, cp. ifi <3 Kai 
KareXrifi(j)67]v Ph. 3. 12 (4. 10 is similar, but the expression is hardly 
formed correctly; cp. infra); of result 2 Tim. 2. 14 (beside an hci 
with accus., where however there is a var. lect.). 'At' or 'to any- 
thing 7 ; 1 C. 14. 16, E. 4. 26, Ph. 1. 3, 2. 17, 1 Th. 3. 7, H. 11. 4, 
Jo. 4. 27 €7rt tovtco (better kv tf*D) ; H. 9. 26 €7rt o-vvrzXda, rov 
atwvos; !<£' w e^povelre 'whereon ye thought' Ph. 4. 10; with 
persons 'against' (cp. ace. supra 1) L. 12. 52 (beside an ace), Ap. 10. 1 1, 
' concerning ' (cp. ace. supra 1) yeypa/ifieva Jo. 12. 16 (D irepl avrov ; 
om. be Nonn.), 'in the case of A. 5. 35; eirl cWt pidprvcrLV diroQvyo-Kei 

H. 10. 28 = Hebr. *£""?>, cp. supra 2 'if two witnesses are there/ 
denoting condition or reason. 

4. Ilapd with accusative, mostly in local sense ' by/ ' beside,' is 
used indiscriminately to answer the questions Where? (strictly irapd 
Tivi) and Whither ? (a distinction which is already becoming lost in 
the classical language, through the encroachment of irapa with the 
accus.; in the N.T. the local irapa nvi has almost disappeared, vide 
infra 6). It is not, as it frequently is in classical Greek, joined with 
personal names (though irapa rov? ir68as nvos is common) ; irpos nva 
takes its place, infra 7. — In metaphorical sense (classical) ' contrary 
to,' as opposed to Kara 'according to,' P. 1. 26, 11. 24 irapa <fiv<Tiv 
opposed to Kara <f>. ; Kara Svvapuv ... irapa 8vv. ('beyond') 2 0. 8. 3 
(v.l. virep) ; 'other than' G. 1. 8 £, also with aXXos 1 0. 3. 11 (class.); 
often 'more than,' both with a comparative, § 36, 12, and also with- 
out one : eXdrpevo-av tyj KTtcrei irapa rov KTicravra P,. 1. 25, 12. 3, 14. 5, 
L. 13. 2, 4, Herm. Mand. x. 1. 2 (in classical Greek only 'in com- 
parison with,' but this easily leads to the other usage). It denotes 
also (as in classical Greek) that in virtue of which something (is or) 
is not: 2 0. 11. 24 Tto-vapaKovra irapa fiiav, i.e. minus one, irapa 
rt ' almost 'L. 5. 7 D, Herm. Sim. ix. 19. 3, ov irapa rovro ovk eo-nv Ik 
rov o-w/xarog 1 C. 12. 15 f. 'that is no reason for its not being' etc. — 
In Mt. and Mc. it is only found in local sense, in the Johannine 
writings (including the Apocalypse) and in the Catholic Epistles 
the use with, accusative is entirely absent. 

5. Ilapd with genitive ' from the side of,' only with persons (so 
classical Greek), with verbs of coming, hearing, receiving etc. (dirb 
sometimes incorrectly takes its place, § 40, 3) ; it is also rightly used 
in rots XeXaXrjfievois irapa Kvpiov L. 1. 45 (since God did not speak 
Himself, but the angel who was commissioned by Him, W.-Gr.) ; but 
in A. 22. 30 irapd is found with Kar^yopdo-Oa^ but only in HLP, the 
other MSS. reading vwo. It occurs without a verb in Mc. 3. 21 ol irap 
avrov 'His kinsfolk' (lxx. Dan. Sus. 33), but there are several 
variants (the phrase in classical Greek could only mean the persons 
sent out by someone) : SairavrjO-ao-a rd irap (irap 1 om. D) eavrrjs 5. 26 
is good classical Greek; Lc. 10. 7, Ph. 4. 18 etc. 

6. Ilapd with dative is 'by,' 'beside,' answering the question 
Where ? and with the exception of Jo. 19. 25 irapd tw o-ravpa} is only 
used of persons (so preponderantly in classical Greek), and more- 

§ 43- 6-7.] WITH THREE CASES. I 3g 

over not of immediate neighbourhood 1 (thus not Ka6rjo-6ai irapd, but 
fierd Ap. 3. 21, crvv A. 8. 31, or irpos Mt. 26. 55 CD), but 'in the 
house of anyone ' as in Jo. 1. 40 : rt or ' amongst a people' as in Ap. 2. 13. 
The word is further used in a figurative sense : L. 1. 30 evpes ydp LV 
irapd tw #ea>/Mt. 19. 26 Svvarbv, dSvvarov irapd tlvl, especially with 
the meaning 'in the opinion of anyone 7 (classical) E. 12. 16 (11. 25, 
where AB have lv) c^poVt/xot Trap eavTOLS, 1 C. 3. 19 fioypLa irapd ro> deep; 
also A. 26. 8 diricrTOV KplveTai Trap vfxiv (Mt. 21. 25 SceXoyt^ovro Trap' 
eavTocs, but ev BL al., as in 16. 8 etc.). — The dative. is the rarest of 
the cases after irapd (on account of its clashing with 71700s, vide 7), 
still nearly all writers use it. 2 

7. IIpos with, accusative is abundantly used with verbs of coming, 
sending, bringing, saying etc. = ' to ' (a person) ; often also with the 
verb 'to be' = 'with 7 or 'at,' taking the place of irapd tlvl, Mt. 13. 56 

7rpos r)ixd<$ elcriv, 26. 18 77700s ere iroid to irdorxa, 26. 55 as a V.L, Mc. 6. 3° 

etc. (Herm. Mand. xi. 9 etc.); also for irapd nva (cp. supra 4), Waxpav 
irpbs rbv dvSpa avrrjs A. 5. 10, elarjXOes irpbs dvSpas 11. 3, i.e. 'into 
their house,' and therefore expressed in Attic by irapd. 3 Also of 
places and things: Mt. 21. 1 irpbs (v.l. els) to opos, Mc. 11. 1, L. 19. 29: 
777)05 ty)v Ovpav Mc. 1. 33, 2. 2, 11. 4 (L. 16. 20), answering the 
questions Whither ? and Where *? (in the latter case we have 
correctly 71700s rfj Ovpa Jo. 18. 16, 77700 tmv OvpQv A. 5. 23, iirl Ovpais 
Mt. 24 ss) ' Mc. 3. 7 7r/)os ttjv OdXao-a-av (v.l. €ts, cp. § 39, 5), 4 L. 12. 3 
7i7>os to o£s XaXelv. As in classical Greek we also have OeppLalveo-Qai 
irpbs to <f>Q>s ('turning towards') Mc. 14. 54 (L. 22. 56). — In temporal 
sense it is used of approximation (class.) : irpbs ecrirepav ko-riv L. 24. 29 
(it p. I. KeKXiKev rj rj/xepa D) ; and with the meaning ' for a certain 
time ' (and no longer) irpbs Katpov, copav, SXlyas fjpepas, to irapov, 5 
L. 8. 13, Jo. 5. 35, H. 12. 10 f. etc. — To express hostile and friendly 
relations, with ixdyearQaL, elprjvrjv exeiv, dcrvjjicf)ioyos (A. 28. 25), rjirtos 
etc.; relevance to, ri irpbs rjfids ; ' what is it to us 1 ' (so classical 
Greek, § 30, 3) Mt. 27. 4, Jo. 21. 22; Mc. 12. 12 irpbs avrovs rqv 
irapafioXrjv etirev = of them, cp. 10. 5, Mt. 19. 8, L. 12. 41, 18. I, 
20. 19 etc.; with dyaOos, co<jf>€A.i/zos, Swaros and other adjectives ('to,' 
'for') E. 4. 29, 1 Tim. 4. 8, 2 0. 10. 4, in which cases it may also 
denote destination, aim, or result, as in L. 14. 32, 19. 42 rd irpbs 

elp-jvrjVy Jo. 4. 35 XevKal irpbs Oepicr/Jbov, 11. 4 irpbs Odvarov 
(1 Jo. 5. 16 f.), A. 3. IO 6 irpbs rrjv eXer]jjLO(rvv7]V KaOrjfJievos, Jo. 13. 28 
irpbs tl elirev 'for what intent.' 'In accordance with' (class.) irpbs rb 
<TVjUL(fjepov 1 C. 12. 7, 71700s a eirpa^ev 2 C. 5. 10, L. 12. 47, Herm. 
Mand. xi. 3/ 'In comparison with' (class.) <x£ia irpbs E. 8. 18. 

1 L. 9. 47 has '4<TT7}(Tev avrb 7r<xp' iavrcp, but D iavrbv. 

2 All except the author of the Ep. to the Hebrews. 

3 Confusion with Trapa tlvl also takes place in Mc. 9. 31 eKparrjo-av irpbs eaurotfs, 
11. 31 (L. 20. 5) BieKoyilovro irpbs eaurotfs, cp. Mt. 21. 25 Trap' iavrois, supra 6. 

4 L. 24. 50 i^rjyayev avrotis ews (om. D) irpbs {els AX al.) Brjdavlav, 'as far as to 
B., 5 'within view of B.,' for that they entered into the place is not to be 
thought of ; els is wrong. 

Classical (Thuc. ii. 22. 1, iii. 40. 7; Plato, Leg. v. 736 A). 
a b c d v. App. p. 314. 

140 SYNTAX OF [§ 43- 8. § 44- 1. 

8. IIpos with genitive only occurs in A. 27. 34 (literary language) 
rovro irpbs rfjs vpLerepas orojrrjptas virdpx^ ( c on the side of/ ' advan- 
tageous to/ 'for/ as in Thuc. iii. 59. 1 ov rrpbs rfjs vperepas S6£r]s rd8e). 
— Ilpds with dative, in local sense 'by/ 'at' (classical) is very rare, 
since the accusative takes its place (cp. supra 7) : Mc. 5. 1 1 irpbs to> 
opei, L. 19. 37 (D accusative), Jo. 18. 16, 20. 11 (with v.l. accus.), 
12, Ap. 1. 13. 


1. The adjective may take over the functions of a substantive not 
only in the masculine and neuter, to denote persons and things 
(where these ordinary ideas readily suggest themselves), but also in 
the feminine : in this case there is a more or less obvious ellipse of 
some well-known substantive, which is sufficiently indicated by the 
feminine gender, the sense, and the context. The rule which applies 
to adjectives holds good also for pronouns and participles, as also for 
adverbial (or prepositional) expressions with the article. In the 
following phrases 711 must be understood : 17 grjpd (Xenoph., LXX.) 
Mt. 23. 15 (rfjv ddXao-crav kolI t. £.), H. 11. 29 (tfAD*E With yfjs), r) 

7repLx<»pos (Plut.) Mt. 3. 5 etc., f) opecvrj L. 1. 30 (or sc. x^P a )j V Zpwos; 
in €K rrjs vtto rbv ovpavbv els rfjv vtt' ovp. L. 17. 24 it is better to supply 
fjLeptdos ; in !£ evavrias avrov Mc. 15. 39 (D 4k€a), Tit. 2. 8 (class.) the 
ellipse is quite obscure. — Ellipse of rjyepa: rfj eiriovo-r} A. 16. 11, 
20. 15, 21. 18 (with rtfi. 7. 26), rrj exopLevrj, rfj erepa 20. 16, L. 13. 33 
(rfj !x- W- A. 21. 26), elsewhere in Acts (and Luke's Gospel) rfj egfjs; 
rfj (hr)avpiov occurs also in Mt. 27. 62 (Mc, Jo., Ja.); o-fjiiepov kcu 
avpiov kcu rfj rpirr} L. 13. 32 (elsewhere rfj rp. f)ii.) ; els rr)v avpiov... 
irpb pads Herm. Sim. vi. 5. 3 (Clem. Horn. ix. 1); i) e/386firi 'the 
Sabbath ' H. 4. 4, rfj pad rQ>v (ra/3/3dro)v A. 20. 7 etc., fiexpf> rfjs 
vrjixepov Mt. 11. 23 etc. (elsewhere with fj/j>.) ; also with d<ft fjs 
2 P. 3. 4 ('since') f)fi. may be supplied, cp. A. 24. 11 (Col. 1. 6, 9), 
but in L. 7. 45 there can only be an ellipse of upas, 1 as there is in 
egavrfjs ' immediately ? (§4. 1) ; there is the same ellipse in (f)) irpma, 
oxf/ca Mt., Mc., a Jo., Herm. (not classical), (fj) rerpdfirjvos Jo. 4. 35, 
rpifi. H. 11. 23, cp. f) TpLfirjvos Hdt. ii. 124. c 08ds is elided in L. 19. 4 
eKeivrjs, 5. 19 7rotas (a stereotyped phrase; § 36, 13), els evOeias L. 3. 5 
O.T. (but 68ovs occurs soon after). Further instances are : ev rfj 
eWrjviKYJ (eWrjvi&i N) SC. ^Xwo-orrj Ap. 9. 1 1, rfj Trveovo-y SC. atfpq. A. 27. 40 
(dpyvpiov fXvpidSas irevre SC. Spaxp-wv A. 19. 19), ewl rfj 7rpo{3ariKy sc. 
ttvXti Jo. 5. 2/17 8e£td, dpurrepd SC. \eCp Mt. 6. 3 etc., ev 8e£ta R. 8. 34 
etc. 'on the right hand/ unless this should be read evftegia (classical; 
N.T. elsewhere has !/c SeguQv, els t<x 8egid pkpr\ Jo. 21. 6, 6 Hermas has 
also Se^ta, €vu>wfia for 'to right' or 'left' Sim. ix. 12. 8), 8apr)verai 
iroXXds ... oXiyas sc. irX^ds L. 12. 47 (§ 34, 3 ; class.), cp. 2 C. 11. 24. 
The following have become stereotyped: dirb pads L. 14. 28 'with 

1 It was a stereotyped formula, cp. Herm. Sim. viii. 1. 4 &<p' t}$ iravra, tdys ' as 
soon as,' 'after that'; 6. 6. 

2 v. App. p. 330. a h v. App. p. 314. 

§ 44- 1-3.] THE ADJECTIVE. 141 

one mind or voice' (airb puds wnrkayiSos Aristoph. Lysistr. 1000) j 1 
Kara fiovas 'alone' (Thuc. i. 32. 5 etc.) Mc. 4. 10, L. 9. 18 (lxx.; 
Herm. Mand. xi. 8); frequently kclt I8iav, I8ta 1 G. 12. 11, 8rjpoo-La. 
'openly' in publico (with a different meaning in Attic) A. 16. 37 etc. 
— Similar instances of ellipse are found also with the other genders: 
rw irveovTL SC. dve>a> A. 27. 1 5 /? text, irpo'ipov koI oxpipov SC verov 
Ja. 5. 7 with the reading of («)B, to rpirov, reraprov, SUarov SC 
fiepos ApOC. (not classical), to 8ioireTes SC. ^aXjxa A. 19. 35, iroT-qpiov 
xI/v X pov sc. iJSttros Mt. 10. 42, cp. Ja. 3. n (Winer, § 64, 5), kv XevKois 
sc. tp.arCoLs Jo. 20. 12 (Herm. Yis. iv. 2. i), cp. Mt. 11. 8, Ap. 18. 12, 1 6. 
— The opposite procedure to an ellipse takes place when Luke 
(according to classical precedent) inserts an dv/jp with a substantive 
denoting a person: d. tt/oo^t^s L. 24. 19, </>oi/ei>s A. 3. 14, av6>l 
'Io^Satw 10. 28, and in addresses dv8pes TaXiXatot, 'Adrjvaiot, d8eXcj>oc 
etc., A. 1. 16 and elsewhere. 

2. The use of an adjectival instead of an adverbial expression in 
the case of certain ideas that are annexed to the predicate is found 
in the N.T. as in the classical language, but rarely : the instances 
are mainly in Luke's writings. AevTepaioc rjXQopev 'on the second 
day ? A. 28. 13, cp. irepirTaioi 20. 6 D for &xp<> fjptp&v 7revT€ of the 
Other MSS. Tevopevai opQpivol kirl to pvrfpelov L. 24. 22 (opOpivbs 
eXrjXvdas Herm. Sim. V. 1. i). AvTopaTrj rjvotyr] A. ^12. 19, Mc. 4. 28. 
'Ettlo-ttJ al<j>vi8ios L. 21. 341 also ckcov, aKuv, 7rpuTOS 'first of all' 
(R. IO'. 19); dvdo-T-qdi opdos A. 14. IO, tovto dXrjQh dpr)Kas («E 

dXr)0{os 2 ) Jo. 4. 18 (like Demosth. 7. 43 tovto 7' dXrfOfj [other MS. 
dXrjOh] Xeyovo-i). There is a certain amount of mixture of jaovos and 
the adverb fiovov, just as in the classical language the one use borders 
closely on the other : Mc. 6. 8 [i-qSev et firj pdfSSov fiovov (povr^v^ D), 
A. 11. 19 firj8evl el /x?) /xovoi/ (jjlovols D) 'Iov8aiois, 1 Jo. 5. 6 oivc ev tw 
vSaTi fiovov (B /xovw). If the word 'alone' refers without any doubt 
to a verb (or else to a predicative idea like aKpoaTai Ja. 1. 22, dpyai 
1 Tim. 5. 13), then fiovov is the only possible expression; but ? it is 
also not contrary to Gk. idiom to say (H. 12. 26 O.T.) oww ov fiovov 
ty)v yrjv, dXXa kol tov ovpavov 'I am not contented with earth- 
shaking only/ 2 Tim. 4. 8 ov fiovov 8e e/zot, dXXd kolI irao-iv (to limit 
the gift to one would be too little). For the reverse use of adverb 
for adj. see § 76, 1. 

3. On the coincidence in meaning of the comparative and super- 
lative and the reason for it, we have already spoken in § 11, 3 ; the 
two degrees are in no way differentiated, as they are in modern 
Greek or in French, by the addition of the article for the superlative, 
but are indistinguishable : 3 see 1 C. 13. 13 ttlcttls eXwh dydwrf, rot rpta 
TavTd- [1€l£<dv 81 tovtojv rf dydirrf. The form which has remained in 
ordinary use is in nearly all cases that of the comparative ; irpQ>Tos 

1 Strictly of runners in a race, who rush off together at the fall of the single 
rope (vcnr\7)yi;, v<nr\ayLs). 

2 Less classical is X^w vjuuv dXyjOcos L. 9. 27, 12. 44, 21. ^ = dfjLifjv (which D 
reads in 12. 44 and Cyprian in 21. 3. 

3 Barnabas agrees with the N.T. use, e.g, 12. 2 {/^TjXorepos iravrwv. 

I 4 2 SYNTAX OF [§ 44. 3. 

and eVxccTos are the only exceptions to this (§11, 5). Now whereas 
the superlative in classical Greek is used not only where there is a 
definite comparison made of several things, but often in what may be 
called an absolute sense, equivalent to our ' very/ while the classical 
comparative occasionally corresponds to an English positive (Oarrov 
= ' quickly '), so the New Testament comparative may have an 
ambiguous meaning: Jo. 13. 27 o 7rotets ttoltjo-ov t^iov (Luther 
' bald ' [A. Y. ' quickly ? ] ; but it may also mean ' as quickly as 
possible ' ; cp. 1 Tim. 3. 14, where there is a v.l. iv -rocket ; in 
H. 13. 19 probably 'more quickly/ 23 idv rd^iov epx^rat 'if he 
comes soon'; in A. 17. 15 we have ws Tayj-vra from the literary 
language, but D reads kv rdyzi)} Also ao-o-ov, /zaAAov, dp^uvov etc., 
similarly vecorepos or -pov (Kacvorepov) can in the classical language be 
rendered in many cases by the positive (although we also use similar 
phrases such as 'come nearer/ 'it is better to ...'); in the N.T. cp. 
(besides irpecr/Syrepos used as the designation of a Jewish or Christian 
official) A. 17. 21 Xkytiv tl rj aKoveiv Ktuvorepov (Kiihner ii. 2 848), 2 
whereas dcrcrov irapeXkyovro rrjv Kprjrrjv 27. 13 (if Oaorcrov be not the 
right reading) must mean ' as near as possible ' ; so in any case 
24. 22 aKpi/SecrTepov etSws = aKpt^Secrrara, 25. 10 kolWlov iirty lv(xxtk€ls 
= apLo-ra, and 2 Tim. 1. 18 should be similarly explained fikXriov crv 
yiviovKeis (not ' thou knowest better than I,' which can certainly not 
be right). 3 In A. 17. 22 cos Seio-iocupiovecrTepovs vfias detopto, it is 
doubtful whether the comp. has its classical sense of 'unusually 
(too) god-fearing' or means 'very god-fearing ? ; but o-irovoaioTepos 
2 C. 8. 17 can only mean 'very zealous'; and frequently there is a 
corresponding use of the English comparative, the standard of com- 
parison being readily supplied, 2 C. 7. 7 coo-re //,e p.dXXov x a PV vaL 
'still more/ In Hermas, on the other hand, the elative sense is 
regularly expressed by the superlative, dyaOtoTaros, o-epbvoraTos etc., 
while in other cases he also uses comparative and superlative inter- 
changeably (Mand. viii. 4. ttolvtcov Trovrjporara needs a correction); 
Sim. ix. 10. 7 is noticeable, rjo-av ol IXaptoTepai, which appears to be 
used in elative sense, and therefore to need correction, but the Latin 
has hilar es satis. — Ot irXeloves may mean 'the greater number/ as in 
1 C. 15. 6 e£ wv ot 7rXeiovs pbevovcnv, 10. 5, but also 'others/ 'more/ 
9. 19 iva rovs 7rXeiova<5 K€p8rjcrto ? (r. ttX. avrwv Origen), 2 0. 2. 6, 
4. 15, 9. 2, Ph. 1. 14 as opposed to the person or persons who have 

1 Cp. Clem. Horn. i. 14 rdxcov <re KaraA^Oyuat, e as quickly as possible,' xi. 13 
T&xt>ov eTrikavdavevde ('forthwith') ; in a quite different sense ix. 23 cbs t&xlov 
elirov — <pda(Tas, modo, 'just before.' For the superlative or elative sense cp. 
also Papyr. Berl. Aeg. Urk. 417, 451, 615. Cp. iruKvoTepov A. 24. 26 where it 
is ambiguous ( ' very often ' or ' so much the oftener ') ; Clem. Cor. ii. 17. 3 prob- 
ably 'as often as possible,' Clem. Horn. Ep. ad Jac. 9 irvKvbrepov ... ws dvvavde 
(in the weaker sense ibid. iv. 2, viii. 7), similarly awexeo-repov iii. 69. 

2 Hermas, Vis. iii. 10. 3 \iav irpecrfivrtpa, 5 SXtj vewrepa ( very old/ c quite 
youthful,' Sim. ix. 11. 5. 

3 The passage adduced by Winer, Luscian Piscat. 20 afieivov <n> ola-da tclvtcl, & 
#iXocro0ta, is different, so far as the meaning of the comp. is concerned : the 
goddess did actually know better than Lucian. « v . App. p. 314. 

§ 44- 3-5.] THE ADJECTIVE. 143 

hitherto been considered ; cp. ravra elirtbv koX rd rovrcov wXeiova 
Clem. Horn. Ep. ad Jac. 17 (so A. 2. 40 krepois re Aoyots TrXetoo-ivT). 1 
— On the remnants of the superlative see § 11, 3 (especially for 
/xaAto-Ta and pidXXov) ; on the forms of expression to introduce the 
object compared (gen., r], irapd or virep) §36, 12. 

4. The positive may also be used with the meaning of a compara- 
tive (or superlative) : this occasionally takes place in the classical 
language, but it is mainly due to the example of the Semitic lan- 
guage, which has no degrees of comparison at all. 01 ttoXXol are 
the many as opposed to the few, i.e. the majority, in classical 
Greek and Mt. 24. 12, frequently in Mc. (Gregory-Tisch. 128) 6. 2 
BL (v.l. without ol), 9. 26 kABLA (same v.L), cp. 12. 37 infra; in 
St. Paul twi/ TToXXcov 1 C. 10. 33 is opposed to ifiavrov, and is 
therefore parallel to the same writer's use of ol TrXeioves elsewhere ; 
irXeiorros is also found in this sense : Mt. 21. 8 6 7rAeio-Tos 6xXos 2 = 6 
ttoXvs 6. of Mc. 12. 37 (at 7rAet(jTat SvvdjjLecs avrov Mt. 11. 20 'his 
numerous miracles/ cp. rd iroXXd ypd^ara A. 26. 24). A further 
example is (Buttm. p. 73) Mt. 22. 36 iroia ivroXrj pieydXrj ev to) vojjup 
' the greatest/ cp. 5. 19. With the idea of comparison more clearly 
marked (by the addition of a gen.), we have rd dyia rcov dyiwv 
H. 9. 2 f. (lxx.), a use which is by no means unclassical (kccko, 
KaKQv, Kiihner-Gerth ii. 3 21). In the case where the comparison 
is introduced by virep or irapd § 36, 12), on the analogy of the 
Semitic construction, the adjective may be either positive or com- 
parative : L. 13. 2 dfiapTuXol irapd iravras (where a comparative was 
wanting, cp. 8€8lkcu<d/jl€vos Trapd 18. 14 tfBL ; frequent in lxx., e.g. 
pieyas rrapd, Trpavs irapd Ex. 18. 1 1, Num. 12. 3). The positive may 
however also be used with rj : Mt. 18. 8 f , Mc. 9. 43, 45 KaXov io-nv 
...r) (lxx. Gen. 49. 12 XevKol rj) ; similarly where there is no 
adjective (and pidXXov is therefore to be supplied) L. 15. 7 x a P^ 
ecrrat ... rj, 1 C. 14. 19 OeXoj ... rj, Lc. 17. 2 XvcrireXeL ... rj, for which 
there are classical parallels. 3 

5. The comparative is heightened, as in classical Greek, by the 
addition of ttoXv or 7roAAo> : 2 C. 8. 22, Jo. 4. 41 ; occasionally too 
by the accumulation of several comparatives : Ph. 1. 23 71-0 A Aw ydf> 

pidXXov Kpeio-crov (Clem. Cor. i. 48. 6 ocra) Sokci pidXXov piccfav etvai is 

merely pleonastic, like Herm. Sim. ix. 28. 4 pidXXov evSogdrepot), 2 C. 
7. 13 Treptoro-orepcDS pidXXov e^dprjpev, Mc. 7. 36 pidXXov irepio-croTepov 
(-orepiDsD) eKTjpvcrcrov, cp. §11, 3, note 4. a The same accumulation appears 
in classical Greek, Schwab Syntax der Comparation iii. 59 ff. But in 
rjcWra pidXXov 2 C. 12. 9 the words should not be taken together: 
the sense being 'Gladly (superl. with elative force, and a stereo- 
typed phrase) will I rather glory in my weaknesses.' 

1 Classical Greek had the same use :*rbv irKelova xpovov ' a longer time ' (than 
at present), ifkeioves \6yoi, rbv ir\eiu \6yov (Soph. Tr. 731) 'further speech.' 
Cp. Kiihn. ii. 549 ; E. Tournier, Rev. de philol. 1877, 253 ; 0. Schwab, Syntax 
der Comparation ii. 178. 

2 Plato, Leg. 700 C. 

3 Kuhner ii. 2 841 (so Herodotus ix. 26 fin. dUaiou kvriv ...?}). 

a v. App. p. 314. ^v. App. p. 330. 

144 NUMERALS. . [§ 45- 1-2 

§ 45. NUMERALS. 

1. The first day of the month or of the week is expressed in the 
LXX. and in the N.T. not by Trpwrr) but by /zta, whereas for the 
higher numbers the ordinal is used, Sevrepa and so on : of course 
the day being a single day (in the case of Sevrepa 'the second ' etc.) 
does not admit of being expressed by a plural, while all other 
numbers but eh must necessarily be plurals. Thus eh ficav o-afiftdruv 
6 on Sunday ? Mt. 28. i, ev juaa tov jjbrjvbs tov Sevrepov Num. 1. i. This 
is not a classical, 1 but undoubtedly a Hebrew idiom (Gesenius- 
Kautzsch, § 134, 4), with this difference that in Hebrew the later 
days of the month are also denoted by cardinal numbers. This 
N.T. usage (found also in A. 20. 7, 1 C. 16. 2, Mc. 16. 2) is violated 
in ' Mc.' 16. 9 TrpcoTY) o-afifiaTov, for which Eusebius however quotes 
rrj p.ta. 

2. Ets already begins now and again to pass from the sense of a 
numeral (one as opposed to several) into that of the indefinite 
article ; the latter development, which has analogies in the German 
and Romance languages, appears completely carried out in modern 
Greek. The Hebrew ^HSl, moreover, afforded a precedent to the 
N.T. writers. In Mt. 8. 19 Trpoo~eX6o>v eh y/oa/z/xciTevs, 26. 69 fiia 
TracStcncrjj Ap. 8. 13 rjKovcra evbs deTov etc., €ts = the classical rts ; and 
similarly we find eh with the gen. (or J£) : L. 15. 15 hit rcov ttoXit&v, 
Ap. 7. 13 eh Zk (Ik om. s) rdv irpeo-fivTepw ; 2 it is used in con- 
junction with tls (classical) eh ns 4£ avrcov L. 22. 50, still in such 
a way that eh forms a contrast to the remaining body (Jo. 11. 49, 
a v.l. in Mc. 14. 47, 51). Eh is used in place of its without adjunct 
in Mt, 19. 16, Mc. 10. 17 (but L. 18. 18 has ns <x/>X wl/ > witn v -l- in P 
text tis). Attention should also be called to 6 eh ... 6 erepos for 
6 p,ev (erepos) ... 6 8e (erepos), Mt. 6. 24, L. 7. 41 tov Ira — tov Se eVa 
Barn. 7. 6. 17), cts ... /cat eh ..., Mt. 27. 38, L. 18. 10 /? text, while 
a has -cis ... 6 erepos (Herm. Mand. vi. 2. 1 ; on the model of Heb. 
intf, 0.^. in Ex. 17. 12), Mc. 4. 8, 20, cp. Mt. 13, 8. 23 (§ 46, 2) etc., just 
as class, writers repeatedly employ eh when dividing a multitude (or 
a duality) into its component parts, Aristot. IIoA. 'Adrjv. 37. 1 6vo, 
&v 6 pev eh — 6 8e erepos, Rhet. ii. 20, p. 1393 a 27 Svo, ev /zev — cv 
Se, Hyperid. cont. Athenog. § 14 f. 6 efs vo/w ... erepos v. k.t.X., 
Xenoph. Cyrop. i. 2. 4 rerrapa ... cv /xev . .. €V 8e ... aXXo ... aXXo ; 
Demosth. xviii. 215 Tpia.,.ev p.ev . . . erepov 8e...TpiTov Se, cp. Ap. 

17. 10 c7TTa ... 06 irevre ... 6 efs ... 6 aAAos. See § 46, 2. But the use 

1 Efs /cat eUoo-ros, TpiaicocrTos (the regular form even in Attic inscriptions) is 
'essentially different, since this is only a case of the formation of the ordinal 
being imperfectly carried out, as in the Latin unus el vicesimus. 

2 This use of els is found already in Attic writers, hi rCbv irokirCbv Hyperid. 
Lycophr. 13, t&v eralpwv els Aesch. c. Ctesiph. 89, although there is always 
the implied meaning 'belonging to this definite number (or class),' so that the 
els has a force which is quite absent from it in Luke loc. cit. The instances 
adduced for the weakened sense of els from Plato and Xenophon (e.g. Plat. 
Ijeg. ix. 855 D) are quite irrelevant, since the ds is there a true numeral. 

§45- 2-4 § 4 6. 1-2.] NUMERALS. THE ARTICLE. 145 

of ets rov r dva for dXXrjXovs 1 Th. 5. 1 t is Semitic (1 C. 4. 6 eis wep 
rov hbs.KaTOL rov krepov is different: the sense being, every individual 
on behalf of the one against the other, fully expressed e£s vtrep rov 
€v. k. t. kr. kolI hepos V7T. t. evbs [the opposite person to the previous 

ivos] K. T. €T.). 

3. ? Ai/a and Kara with a numeral have a distributive sense as in 
•classical Greek : Mc. 6. 40 Kara (v.l. dva as in L. 9. 14) l/carov kcu 
Kara irevT^KovTa (Herm. Sim. ix. 2. 3 dva Svo 7rap0evoi, cp. § 39, 2) ; 
besides this we have after the Semitic and more colloquial manner 1 
(also found, however, in old Greek) &;o Svo Mc. 6. 7 (dva Svo D as in 
L. 10. 1), just as for Kara o-vpuroo-ia^ k. 7rpao~Las Mc. 6. 39 f. has o-vfi~ 
Trdcrta crvfiTroo-ia, irpaorial Trpacnai, and in Mt. 13. 30 Seoyzas Seo-fids 
(Epiph. Orig.) appears to be the right reading (Herm. Sim. viii. 2. 8 
Tayfjiara rdypLara, 4. 2). 2 On dva efs eKacrros, efs Ka6 J ets and the like, 
see § 51, 4. 

4. 2 P. 2. 5 67800V N5e k4>v\a£ev y 'Noah with seven others,' is 
correct classical Greek (though oyS. avrbv would be more usual). — 
Mt. 18. 22 €(os efiSofjLrjKovrdKLs kirrd is peculiar for 'seventy times 
seven times': D* alone reads kfiS. Jin-a/as. — 'Now for the third 
time ' is rp'nov rovro (§ 34, 3), like Herod, v. 76 reraprov tovto (W.); 
'for the third time' is (to) rpWov Mc. 14. 41 etc., e/c rpnov Mt. 
.26. 44, cp. €K SevTepov (Mc. 14. 72?) Jo. 9. 24, A. 10. 15 etc. 

§ 46. THE ARTICLE. I. 'O, tj, to, as pronoun ; the article with 
independent substantives. 

1. The article 6, r), to, which had long since been developed out 
of the old demonstrative pronoun, retains on the whole in the N.T. 
all its former usages, and amongst them to a certain extent its use 
as a pronoun ('this one/ 'he'). There is here, however, a confusion 
(found also in other Hellenistic writings, and indeed in the classical 
period, Kuhner ii. 2 779 f.) between the forms of the dpdpov irpo- 
TaKTtKov 6, rj, to and those of the dpOpov vrroTaKTiKov 6s, i], 6, since 
the latter are employed as demonstratives instead of relatives. 

2. c Oji€v-6 8e, 'the one -the other.' This use is no longer very 
frequent in the N.T., and usually takes the form of 8s fiev - 8s Sk (neut. 
o [lev ... o Se, plur. a jjl€v, oh /xei/ ? ovs /xev etc.); moreover the (Semitic) 
use of ets encroaches upon it, § 45, 2, though the latter is not every- 
where synonymous with it, and can form no plural. Thus 6 fih - 6 
St refers either to persons already familiar, the one - the other, this 
one — that one, or is quite indefinite, one -another; on the other 
hand it does not serve as a means of differentiating a number of 
persons or things when they are introduced for the first time ; hence, 
whereas Luke can say (23. 33) rovs KaKovpyovs, ov jxlv — ov SI, the 
phrase in Mt. 27. 38 is Svo Xyo-Tat, eTs — Kal e£s (class, eis fxev — €T€pos 
Sk), cp. § 45, 2. Other instances of os /nev — os SI : Mt. 13. 4 (a fiev — 
dXXa Se [D a Se] ; similar freedom as to the sequence in the clauses 
is freq. elsewhere, cp. Kuhner-Gerth ii. 3 585 note), 13. 8, 16. 14, 21. 
35, 22. 5 (6s KBC*L, ol D), 25. 15, 25. 67 (01 Se alone, 'but others'), 

1 2 v. App. p. 330. 

146 THE ARTICLE. [§46.2-4. 

28. 17 (ditto), 1 Mc. 4. 4, 12. 5, L. 8. 5, Jo. 7. 12, A. 14. 4, 17. 18 
(Ttves...ot &), 32, 27. 44, 28. 24, E. 9. 21, 14. 2 (05 \xlv~o [os FG] 
6e dcr0€i/c3v), 5, 1 C. 11. 21, 12. 8, 28, 2 C. 2. 16 ('the latter'- 'the 
former,') Ph. 1. 16 (ditto), 2 Tim. 2. 20, Jd. 22. On the other hand 
the only instances of 6 plv - 6 Se are : 1 C. 7. 7 o /xev oirrw? 6 Se 
ourcos (os . . . os . . . K C KL), E. 4. 11 tovs fxev - tovs Se all Mss. ; also in 
H. 7. 20 £, 23 f., 12. 10 we have ol /xev-6 8e, referring to definite 
persons (in 7. 20 f. the priests under the old system - Jesus), who 
are indicated in this way instead of by a repetition of the names, a 
case in which os is not used, 2 and (according to the reading of 
cod. 700, certainly right) L. 8. 5 f . 6 fxlv (sc. o-iropos) ... koX hepos. 
On the other hand, in the parallel passage Mt. 13. 23 os Srj (D more 
correctly Tore for os 8rj ; cp. § 78, 5) Kapiro<f>opei koX iroiei 6 fiev Zkcltov, 
6 Se I^kovtcc, 6 8e rpiaKovra, we should write o neuter, cp. 8 ; also 
just above in 19 ff. we should write (with k) tovto kcm to . . . G-irapkv, 
to h\...vTrap\v tovto ko-Tiv, to prevent parable and interpretation 
from being mixed up in a very awkward manner. In Mc. 4. 20 we 
also have the neut. 2v Tpi&KovTa k.t.X. (where it is quite wrong to 
write h). 

3. 'O 8« 'but he/ t| 8e, ol Se (only in the nominative) used in con- 
tinuing a narrative, are common in all historical writings (least often 
in St. John); 3 the use of 6 \iev oSv 'he then,' without a 8e strictly 
corresponding to the /xei/, is confined to the Acts. t O §e, 6 filv ovv 
show a special tendency to take a participle after them, which gives 
rise occasionally to ambiguity. For instance, in A. 8. 4 ot ph ovv 
ScacnrapevTes means ' they therefore that were scattered,' since in 
order to separate oi from Siao-TrapevTts it would be necessary for the 
subject referred to to have been mentioned just before, whereas 
here it is a long way off (verse 1) ; but in 1. 6 ot /xev ovv o-weXOovTes. 
it is ambiguous whether the meaning is ' they therefore who were 
come together ' or ' they therefore, when they were come together/ 
The demonstrative 6 (os) no longer appears in connection with other 
particles : there is no trace of koX os, koX tov in the continuation of 
a narrative, nor of tov /cat tov 'such and such a one/ or 7rpb rod 
'formerly' etc. 

4. e O, 17, to used as the article with appellatives has as in classical 
Greek a double import : it is either individual or generic, i.e. it 
either calls special attention to one definite individual out of a class, 
6 avOpo)7ros — ovTos 6 avOpuTTos, or it contrasts the whole class as 
such with other classes, ot av0po)7roL opposed to to. aAAa (wa (or to 
6 0€os). The latter use is also derived from the demonstrative 
sense : 'these persons/ to wit 'men/ This sense of the article was 
known by grammarians in early times (Apollonius Dyscolus) as the 
' anaphoric ' sense, because there is a reference back (dva^opd) to 
something already familiar or supposed to be familiar : 6 SovXos o~ov 
is ' your slave ' (the particular slave whom you know I mean, or the 
one whom you have), but SovXos o-ov is ' a slave of yours/ If there- 
fore an individual who is not yet familiar is introduced for the first 

1 2 3 v. App. p. 330-331. 

§46.4-5.] THE ARTICLE. 147 

time, or if the whole class (though familiar) is not embraced, but 
only an undefined part of it, then no article need be used, as e.g. in 
the case of a predicate : for in vpeh fxdprvpes tovtuv there is no 
dva<fiopd to particular well-known witnesses, nor is the whole class 
embraced: this is the ordinary rule for expressing a predicate 
(exceptions are given in § 47, 3). 

5. The use of the individual article, in cases where it is used at 
all, is generally speaking obligatory, at least according to classical 
usage it is so : the necessity for its use is not removed by the inser- 
tion of a demonstrative or a possessive : ovtos 6 dvOpoywos, i) ep) 
oiKca. The generic article may be far more readily dispensed with, 
especially in the case where the genus is represented by only a 
single specimen. With natural objects : we have 6 tjXlos, i) o-eXrjvr}, 
but also rjXtov 8e (rov 8e rj. D) dvarecXavros Mt. 13. 6, L. 21. 5 ecrovrai 
crr][jL€ia kv rjXtco koL creXy^vy kolI acrr/Dot?, followed by a contrasted state- 
ment Kal e-n-l Tfjs yyjs 'here on earth': A. 27. 20 /irjre Se r/Xlov jjbrjre 
do-rpuv €7TL<paLv6vro)v, ' neither sun nor stars shining,' 1 C. 15. 41 aXX-q 
86£a tjXlov, kolI dXXrj S6£a creXrjV^s, Kal aXXy 86£a dorripojv, Ap. 7. 2, 
16. 12 airo dvaroXrjs rjXtov, 22. 5 ovk eyovcriv y^peiav <£arrbs Xv^yov Kal 
<pojTos yjXlov (cp. 21. 23 with. art.). In a certain number of these 
examples the omission or insertion of the article was obviously a 
matter of choice ; but in A. 27. 20 the meaning appears to be 
intensified by the omission ' neither any sun,' and with 1 C. 15. 41 
verse 39 must be compared, aXX-q plv (crdp£) dvOpuirMv, dXXn) 81 kttjvcov 
etc., and the reason for the absence of the article might be in both 
passages that the reference is not so much to the species taken as a 
whole, or to the uniquely existing sun, as to the distinctive charac- 
teristic of the species or of the individual object in the respective 
passages. Cp. 2 0. 11. 26 klv8vvois Ik ykvovs (my kindred, i.e. Jews), 
Kal l£ Wvwv (elsewhere usually rd Wvtj, vide infra), k. lv 6aXd<r<rr| ; 
the article would here be wrong. Further instances of the absence 
of the art. with OdXacrcra : Mt. 4. 15 O.T. 68bv 6aXdo-o-7]s, A. 10. 6, 12 
napd OdXacrcrav (after a preposition or a substantive equivalent to a 
prep., § 40, 9), L. 21. 25 rj\ovs SaXdoro-rjs, Ja. 1. 6 kXv8<dvl daXdo-o-rjs, 
Jd. 13 Kvpara dypia 6aX. (part of the predicate, and also due 
to the distinctive character of the sea being the point of the 
comparison). With yrj ' earth ' the cases of omission of the art. 
are mainly after a preposition (though even here the cases of inser- 
tion far preponderate) : lirl yr}$ Mt. 28. 18 (with rrjs BD), L. 2. 14, 
1 0. 8. 5, E. 3. 15, H. 12. 25, 8. 4 (in all these instances except the last 
in conjunction with lv ovpavols (-$) or dir' ovpavov or lv vxpi&Tois), 
Ik yrjs 1 C. 15. 47 (opposed to l£ ovp.), cp. also a7rb aKpov yyj? ews 

&Kpov ovpavov Mc. 13. 27. Besides these we have A. 17. 24 ovpavov 
Kal yrjs Kvpcos, 2 P. (3. 5 ovpavol ... Kal yrj ' a new heaven/ similarly 
13), 3. 10 ovpavol (with ot ABC) . . . orroixda ...yy] (with 7) CP), cp. 12. 
Among these instances, in 1 C. 15. 47 the omission was no doubt 
obligatory, since Ik yrjs is ' earthy ' (the essential property of earth 
is referred to). Ovpavos (-ot) with a preposition frequently stands 
without an article (often there is a diversity of reading in the mss.); 
the omission is obligatory in Mt. 21. 25 f. I£ ovpavov ... I£ dvOp&wv 

I4 8 THE ARTICLE, [§ 46. 5-7. 

= 'of heavenly' or 'human origin'; so in Mc. 11. 30 f., L. 20. 4 f. 
Omission of art. where there is no prep, occurs in A. 3. 21, 17. 24 
(for 2 P. 3. 5, 12 vide supra). K6<rp.os : kv koo-/xo> 1 C. 8. 4, 14. 10, 
Ph. 2. 15 etc. (v.l. in 2 P. 1. 4) ; of one world as opposed to another 
2 P. 1. 5 (see above on yrj) ; Koo-fiov forming part of the anarthrous 
predicate R. 4. 13, 11. 12, 20; the omission is regular in all writers 
in the formula a7rb Kara/SoXrjs (<*>f>XV s > KTioreco^) k6o~[aov Mt. 25. 34 etc., 
cp. arr' dpxqs KTwr€«s Mc. 10. 6, 13. 19, 2 P. 3. 4 ; other instances 
2 C. 5. 19, G-. 6. 14. — The points of the compass, only found in con- 
nection with prepositions, never have the article : Kara fiecrr]fj,/3pLav 
A. 8. 26, a7rb avaroXwv Mt. 2. 1, 8. II etc., a7rb SvctjjlQv L. 12. 54, dirb 
fioppa kcu vorov 13. 29 (so in other writers); also /3ao-tXtoro-a vorov 
Mt. 12. 42 of more definite regions in the south, but kv t{j dvaroXfj 
is used in the same sense in Mt. 2. 2, 9. 

6. Another class of Being, unique of Its kind, is expressed by 
•0€o's, Kvpios ( = jtiJ"p, but also Christ), and these words come near 
being proper names; it is not surprising that the article is frequently 
dropped. This happens especially after a preposition (a™ Oeov 
Jo. 3. 2, kv Kvpicp passim), or when the word is in the genitive and 
dependent on an anarthrous noun (particularly a predicate), e.g. 
Mt. 27. 20 on Oeov el [it vlos, L. 3. 2 kyevero pyjfjia Oeov (subject), 
although we also have el vibs eT rov Oeov Mt. 4. 3, vie rov Oeov 8. 29, 
and the usage depends more on a natural tendency to assimilation 
and abbreviation than on any hard and fast rule. So also vie 
StapdXou A. 13. 10 (Sta/3. elsewhere takes an art., as does o-aravds 
except in [Mc. 3. 23 £ one Satan '] L. 22. 3). On Xpio-ros vide infra 10. 
— Under the head of the generic article must also be classed plurals 
like avOpuiroi, veKpoi, eOvy]; here too it is especially after a preposition 
and in a few phrases besides that we occasionally have noticeable 
instances of the omission of the art.: 4k v€Kp<3v kyepOrj Mt. 17. 9, and 
so regularly (except in E. 5. 14 O.T., Col. 2. 12 BDEFG, 1 Th. 1. 10 
[om. Tuv ACK]), whereas we have rjyepOrj dtro rtov v. Mt. 14. 2 etc.; 
dvdo-rao-tv veKpQtv A. 17. 32, 23. 6 etc.; in 1 C. 15. 15 f, 29, 32 the 
article could not stand, because it is the idea and not the complete 
number which is in question (verse 5 2 is different) ; 1 P. 4. 5 Kplvai 
{covras /cat veKpovs = all, whether dead or living, cp. a 6. — Not infre- 
quently Mvr\, 'the heathen' is without an art.: after Hebr. tP^ in 
A. 4. 25 O.T., E. 15. 12 O.T.; l£ kOvw A. 15. 14, G.2. 15, kv Wveu-tv 

1 Tim. 3. 16, crvv eO. A. 4. 27 ; in the gen. irXovros kOvQv, kOv. aTrocr- 
toXos R. 11. 12 f. (predic); also R. 3. 29 f. ?} 'Iov&uW (as such) 6 
0eb$ fxovov'y ov)(l kolI kOvcov, val kcu kOvwv, eiirep eis 6 Oeos, os SiKauocrei 
wepiTo/uLYjv (as such, or in some individual instances not specified) Ik 
7r60-T€0)S kolI aKpofivo-Tiav Std rrjs (anaphoric) TTto-Tews. 

7. The individual article could scarcely be expected in formulas 
like &ir' dvpov, kv dypio, els dypov, since there is no question of a 
definite field (Mt. 13. 24 kv t<J dyp§ avrov) ; if however we also find 
kv tw a. etc. without reference to a definite field (Mt. 13. 44, like roc 
Kpiva rov dypov 6. 28), the art. must then be regarded as generic (as 
we say * the country '). 6 'Ev d-yopa L. 7. 32 = kv rats dy opals (rats om. 

a b v. App. p. 314. 

§46.7.] THE ARTICLE, 149 

CEF al.) in Mt. 11. 16 etc.; dir' dyopas Mc. 7. 4 a formula; similarly 
tVt 0vpais Mt. 24. 33 ; of time Trpbs ecnrepav L. 24. 29, eco? ecnrepas 

A. 28. 23, /A€X/Ot fJLeCTOVVKTiOV 20. 7 (kCITO. TO /X6CT. 16. 25), StO, VUKTO? 

with v.l. Sta t^s v. A. 5. 19, 16. 9 etc. (the art. denoting the particular 

night), 7T/)b KCUpOV = TTplv KdipoV elvai Mt. 8. 29, €V Kaipto = OTCLV KdLpOS fj 

24. 45, ax/ofc Kcupov L. 4. 13, A. 13. 11, 7r/oos Kcupov L. 8. 13, Kara k. 
E. 5. 6 ('at the right time/ 'in its due time'*), napd Kaipbv rjXiKtas 
H. 11. 11 (so also in classical Greek without art.); clir' (e£) dpxfjs, ev 
apxQ (class.); but ev KaipQ> icrxdro) 1 P. 1. 5, ev ecrxdrats jpepais 
2. Tim. 3. 1, Ja. 5. 3 (used along with hr eo~xdrov or -wv t«v rjpepcov, 
§ 47, 2) come under the same class as diro TrpuT-qs fj^epas A. 20. 18, 
Ph. 1. 5 (KABP insert Trjs), diro eKrrjs upas Mt. 27. 45, ecus upas ZvaTTjs 
Mc. 15. ^^ (cp. Herm. Vis. iii. 1. 2, Sim. ix. 11. 7), em rptrov ovpavov 
2 C. 12. 2, 7rpu>Tr]v <pv\aKr]V /cat SevTepav A. 12. 10, irpiorrjs (the read- 
ing -T7? of the mss. is corrupt) fiepidos rfjs Ma*. 7roA.ts 16. 12, and are 
explained by a usage of the older language, according to which the 
art. may be omitted with ordinal numbers, Kiihner ii. 2 55 1, 6 and not 
merely in phrases like etrxdrr} topa ecrriv 1 Jo. 2. 18. The usage of 
the language is however regulated with still greater precision : in 
statements about the hour the. art. is used only either anaphorically 
as in Mt. 27. 46, cp. 45, or where there is an ellipse of &pa as in 
Mt. 20. 6 (in 9 it is anaphoric), or where a further definition is 
introduced as in A. 3. 1 T-qv copav ttjs irpocrcvx'ns rrjv evdrrjv; with 
^7/xepa, on the other hand, it is only absent in the case of more 
indefinite expressions, but is used with more definite statements, 
thus rfj rpiTr) rjpepa always, and in Jo. 6. 39 ff. ev rfj Zcrxdrrj fjfxepa. 
— 0dvaTos very frequently appears without an art., where German 
inserts one : ecus Oavdrov Mt. 26. 38, evoxos Oavdrov, d^tov Oavdrov, 
7rapa8i86vai els Odvarov, yevecrOat Oavdrov; the art. is used either of 
the actual death of a definite person (1 C. 11. 26), or (but this is 
almost confined to John's Gospel, Paul, and Apoc.) of death in the 
abstract, cp. 8. inf., Jo. 5. 24 fiera/3ef3rjKev eK tov 0. els rrjv ((otjv, 1 or 
where death is half personified (Ap. 13. 3, 12), besides the case 
where assimilation to a noun in connection with it requires the 
article : to diroKpLfJia tov 0. 2 C. 1. 9 (rj 7rXrjyrj tov 9. avrov 
Ap. 1 3. 3, 1 2 is anaphoric). — IIv€vfj.a : to dytov irv. is used sometimes 
to a certain extent personally, and then with the article, sometimes 
for the godlike spirit moving in man, and then without an art., 
unless there is 'anaphora 7 as in A. 2. 4, 8. 18, cp. 17; in 10. 44 
lireirecrev to 7tv. to dy. e-n-l navTas there is a reference to the well- 
known fact of the outpouring, but this instance also approximates to 
the first usage. Omission is also occasioned by the presence of a 
preposition or by assimilation : ev irv. dylu, ev Swdfxei 7rvevfxaros 
dylov. — 3 Jo. 6 eviOTTiov eKKXrjcrias, 1 C. 14. 4 eKKXrjo-iav otKoSofiei 
scarcely need explanation ('a congregation'); in H. 12. 7 ris yap 
vtos, ov ov traiSevei irar-qp, we might expect to have 6 7i\ ' his father/ 
as in 1 Tim. 2. 1 2 after yvvauci to have tov dvSpos ' her husband ' (so 
1 C. 11. 3 KecfraXrj ywatKos 6 dvrjp ; in E. 5. 23 the art. goes with 

1 On incidental cases of omission of the art. cp. 8. 
a b v. App. p. 314. 

l5 o THE ARTICLE. [§46.7-9, 

ywaiKos), but the relation is neglected ('whom a father does not 
chastise 5 ; see also § 82, 2 note), cp. a Herm. Sim. ix. 28. 4 Iva 8ovXos 
Kvptov iSlov dpvrjcrrjTou. IiaTrjp is used of God in Jo. 1. 14 So£av 
d>s povoyevovs irapa irarpos (a kind of assimilation to fiovoy.), also in 
the formula a7ro Oeov TraTpbs rj^v E-. 1. 7 etc.; tti<ttQ> ktlcttyj 

1 P. 4. 19, with v.l. a)5 7r. kt., is at any rate agreeable to the sense. 
2w yvvatglv A. 1. 14 is a regular formula, cp. 21. 5 <rvv y. kol t€kvols 
(classical Greek has the same phrase ; so we say ' with women and 
children'); further, eirl irpocrwirov ttL-kts.iv L. 5. 12 etc., Kara rrp. 

2 C. 10. 7 1 ; cp. 9. 

8. With abstract words the article is very frequently absent in 
Greek, where it is used in German ; the more abstract the sense 
in which such a word is used, the less liable is it to take any article 
other than the generic. Hence in some passages the question is 
rather to account for the presence of the art. than for its absence ; 
e.g. Col. 3. 5 iropveiav aKaOapcrtav irddos eir lOv [Aiav ... koX ttjv 7rXeove£tav, 
-tyres ecrrlv elSoiXoXarpia 'and that principal vice, covetousness ' etc.; 
the additional clause tjtis k.t.X. entails the use of the article. In 
1 C. 14. 20 /xt) iraiSla ytvecrOe rats <j>pecrLV y dXXd ttj Ka/aa vtjtt 'latere, ry 
k. is due to rah ^pecriv. Cp. further H. 1. 14 els SuxKoviav a7roo-reA- 
XSfJLeva 8ta tovs fieXXovTas KXrjpovofietv <r<0Tt]ptav (2. 3, 5. 9, 6. 9, 9. 28, 
11. 7 ; with art. only in 2. 10 to v dpyj\yov ttjs o-coTrjpias avr&v). In 
1 C. 13. 13 vvvl $€. [level ttictt is eXrrls dydirt] ... fiecfav &e tovt(ov rj 
dydirrj the art. is anaphoric (so also in the German ; cp. verses 4 and 
3, R. 13. 10 and 9; R. 12. 7 eiTe Siolkoviolv, ev rfj SiaKovla' eiTe 6 
§i§do-K(x)v, ev rfj SiSacrKaXia etc.; but ibid. 9 fF. r\ dydirr] dvviroKpiTOS, tyJ 
<£>iXa8eXcf)La cfiiXocrTopyoi, ttj Tifxrj dXXrjXovs Trporjyovp.evoi, ttj cr7rov8rj {jlyj 
oKvrjpoi, because they are virtues assumed to be well known etc.). 
St. Paul is fond of omitting the art. with a/zapTta, vofxos, and occa- 
sionally with OdvaTos (R. 6. 9, 8. 38, cp. supra 7), but the reason for 
his doing so is intelligible: B.. 5. 13 d\P l 1^9 v °l JL0V dfiapTta r\v ev 
koct/xo) ('before there was a law, there was sin'), dpapTia Se ovk 
iXXoyeiTOLL /at) ovtos vo/jlov, 6. 14 d/iapTta ('no sin,' cp. 8 OdvaTos) v/jlcjv 
ov Kvptevcrei' ov yap ecrTe vtto vofiov ('under any law') aAAot vtto X^P iV i 
3. 20 8tot yap vopLov en ly wo- is dfxapTtas (a general statement).* 2dp£ 
also inclines to an abstract sense (the natural state of man) ; hence 
we frequently have ev crapKi and nearly always kclto, crdpKa (tyjv is 
inserted as a v.l. in 2 C. 11. 18, and by nearly all mss. in Jo. 8. 15). 

9. Whereas hitherto no case has occurred where the classical 
usage of the article is opposed to the N.T. usage, such opposition 
appears in the case of a noun which governs a genitive, and which 
in Hebrew would therefore be in the construct state or would have 
a suffix attached to it, and in either case would be without an 
article ; this Semitic usage has exercised a considerable influence on 
the Greek of the N.T. writers, especially where they make use of 
Semitic (i.e. Hebrew or Aramaic) originals. But as it was repugnant 
to the spirit of the Greek language, the article has in general only 

1 Also in profane writers like Polybius ; there are similar classical phrases, 
kclt' 6<p0a\[jLoiJS, ev d^OaX/nois etc. a b v. App. p. 314. 

§ 46. 9-10.] THE ARTICLE. T 5 r 

been omitted, where the whole clause was governed by a preposition 
(cp. supra 5-7), and the phrase has thus become a fixed formula : 
a7rb (7r/)b) Trpocriowov nvos, 1 Sta \etpos rtvos, Slol arofxaros nvos, (Itto 
v^OaXpitov crov L. 19. 42, kv ocfadaXpLols rjpLwv Mt. 21. 42 O.T. (irph 6<£>0. 
•6/xwv Clem. Cor. i. 2. i), 1 formulas which are all thoroughly Hebraic, 
.§ 40, 9 ; further instances are kv rjpkpais 'Hpwoov Mt. 2. 1, kv fjpkpa 
opyyjs E-. 2. 5, Ph. 1. 6 <xx/>is rj/Jiepas 'lycrov Xpurrov, cp. 10, 2. 16 (lv 
t^ tJ/x. to£ Kvpiov 1 C. 5. 6, 2 C. 5. 14, 2 Th. 2. 2 ; on the other 
hand the art. is omitted even with the nom., rjpkpa Kvpiov 1 Th. 5. 2 
[r} add. AKL], 2 P. 3. 10 BC [with ij kAKLP]) ; € fe o?kov avrtov 
Mc. 8. 3, cp. 26 (the use with the art. largely preponderates; 
L. 14. I els olkov [rov o. A] rtvos twv Raptor, [cp. A. 18. 7, 10. 32] is 
excusable: rrjv kgit' olkov avrcov eKKX-qariav R. 16. 5, Col. 4. 1 5, cp. 
Philem. 2, is a regular phrase and perhaps not a Hebraism); eK KoiXlas 
fiYjrpos (avrov) Mt. 9. 12, L. 1. 15, A. 3. 2, 14. 8 ; Iv f3i/3\a> fafjs Ph. 
4. 3 (but in Ap. with two articles), kv /3if3Xo) Xoyow 'Ho-atov L. 3. 4, 
cp. 20. 42, A. 1. 20, 7. 42 (kv rfj f3. Morucreous Mc. 12. 26), kv SaKrvXo) Oeov 
L. 11. 20, kv tw BeeA£e/3ot>A. apyorri rdv SaipovioiV Mt. 12. 24 (and a 

v.l. in L. 11. 15), and many more.* To these must be added phrases 
which contain a proper name in the genitive, where the omission of 
the art. is not dependent on the presence of a preposition: yrj 
3 Io~parjX, 2oS6/xcov, Alyvirrov, XaASattov etc., f3acrtXeo)S Alyvirrov 
A. 7. IO, els ttoXlv Aaut'S L. 2. 4, cp. II ('the city of D.'), olkos 'lorparjX 
Mt. 10. 6 (23 D) etc., k£ olkov kolI irarpias AamS L. 2. 4 (but ill 
L. 1. 33, H. 8. 8, 10 O.T., it takes the article as in the LXX.), e£ 
k<j>r){jLepLas 'Afiia L. 1. 5. It is not often that this omission of the art. 
goes beyond such instances as those mentioned, as it does in Mary's 
song of praise in L. 1. 46 fF.: kv fipa\iovi avrov, Stavota KapScas avrojv, 
'lo-parjX ircuSbs avrov, and in that of Zacharias ibid. 6& fF. : kv olkw 
AavlS iraidos avrov, k£ kyQpwv rjpL&v, ScaOrjKrjs ayias avrov, oSovs avrov t 
81a cnrXdyxva kXkovs Oeov ->)p£v etc., by which means an unusually 
strong Hebrew colouring is here produced. 2 Cp. 2. 32 (Simeon's 
song of praise), Ja. 1. 26, 5. 20. 

10. In the case of proper names the final development of the 
language has been that in modern Greek, when used as proper names, 
they take the article ; in classical Greek, on the other hand, as also 
in the Greek of the N.T., proper names as such take no article, but 
may take one in virtue of a reference (anaphora) to something pre- 
ceding. Thus if Luke in A. 9. t says 6 Se H,avXos en kpL-rrvewv k.t.A., 
his object in using the article is to remind the reader of what he has 
previously narrated about the man (8. 3 *2avXos 8e) ; we are then 
informed that he requested kirio-roXal els Aafxao-Kov, and further on 
in verse 3, that he drew nigh to Tfj Aa/xao-Kw (the place of his destina- 

1 Cp. supra 7 ad fin. with note * ; writers of pure Greek do not add a 
genitive to expressions of this kind. 

2 1 C. 2. 16 res yap 'iyvu vovv Kvpiov is a quotation, and so is 1 P. 3. 12 6<pda\- 
fjiol Kvpiov, &ra avrov ; the lxx. abounds with instances of this kind. But in 
1 Tim. 5. 10 ayiwv 7r65as, irrodas is due to assimilation to ayiuv ; in 1 C. 10. 21 
rpa-irefys Kvpiov - rp. baifxoviwv it is the character of the thing which is in ques- 
tion, cp. supra 5 (the one is a table of the Lord, the other a table of devils). 

a v. App. p. 315. 

152 THE ARTICLE. [§46.10-11. 

tion), the use of the article being much the same as in 20. 7 Kkdo-ai 
apTov compared with 11 hcXdcras rbv dprov. There is a subtle, and 
often untranslatable, nicety of language in this use of the article. 
But it is obvious that it depends in great measure on the caprice of the 
writer, whether in a case where frequent mention is made of the same 
person he chooses to express this reference to the preceding narrative 
or not: moreover the MSS. are frequently divided. If in Acts 1. 1 
kAE al. (as opposed to BD) are right in reading 6 'Irjcrovs, then by 
this 6 the mind is carried back to the contents of the Gospel ; but 
such a reminder was by no means necessary. 'Itjo-ovs, moreover, in 
the Evangelists "takes the article as a rule, except where an apposi- 
tional phrase with the art. is introduced; since obviously in that 
case either the article with the name or the phrase in apposition is 
superfluous. Hence Mt. 26. 69, 71 perd 'I. rov TaXiXacov (Nafcopouou), 
27. 17, 22 'I. rbv Xeyopevov X/DtcrroV, L. 2. 43 'I. 6 7rous (2. 27 to 
iraiSiov 'l-qvovv) cp. A. 1. 14 Mapta rfj prjrpl rov 'I., etc. 1 Again, 
not only at the first mention of Jesus at all, but also in the first 
appearance of the risen Lord, the use of the art. is excluded, since 
here too there cannot well be anaphora : Mt. 28. 9 (6 'I. DL al.), 
L. 24. 15 (6 'I. DNPX al.) ; in John's Gospel, however, while on the 
one hand the anaphoric article is rendered possible at this point by 
the context and is actually found there (20. 14 Oeupel rbv 'Irjo-ovv 
Icrrwra, after 12 to <rQ>pa rov 'I-qcrov), on the other hand it is often 
omitted elsewhere (e.g. in 1. 50), as frequently happens in the other 
Evangelists in the case of other less distinguished names, such as. 
'Io)dvr)$ and Herpos. In the Epistles, on the contrary, and in the 
Apocalypse (and to some extent in the Acts) the article is as a rule 
omitted as entirely superfluous (somewhat in the same way as is 
done by the Greek orators in the name of the adversary in a lawsuit); 
exceptions are 2 C. 4. 10 f. (but D*FG omit the art.), E. 4. 21 
(anaphora to avTw), 1 Jo. 4. 3 (anaphora to 2 ; but « has no art.). 
Xpto-Tos is strictly an appellative, = the Messiah, and this is made 
apparent in the Gospels and Acts by the frequent insertion of the 
article ; here again the Epistles for the most part (but not always) 
omit it. — A special case is that of indeclinable proper names, with 
which the article, without its proper force, has occasionally to serve 
to determine the case of the word : Mt. 1. 2 fF. 'KfSpadp. eyewrjarev 
rbv } IcradK...rbv 'laKufi etc. (the same form is also used in the case of 
declinable names, such as rbv 'IovSav and 6 tot) Ovpuov, but probably 
not with names which have a clause in apposition & ; see also 
A. 7. 8, 13. 21. On ol rov ZefcSaiov see § 35, 2. 

11. The preceding statements hold good equally for place-names 
as for personal names (the art. is anaphoric in A. 9. 3 vide supra, 
9. 38 Trj 'Io7rirr], 42 rrjs 'IoW^?, cp. 36); rrjs 'Pcu/x^s 18. 2 is due to 
rrjs 'LraAias in the same verse; rrjv Tw/^v 28. 14 denotes Eome 
as the goal of the whole journey. Tpyds also, although strictly 
subject to an article ('AAe£<xv6peia f) Tpcods), only takes one in 
a peculiar way in 2 C. 2. 12 (without an art. in A. 16. 8, 20. 5). 
There is a peculiar use of the art. in the Acts in the statement of 
a b v. App. p. 315. 1 v. App. p. 331. 

§46.11-12.] THE ARTICLE. 1 53 

halting-places on a journey: 17. i rrjv 'Ap^nroAtv kol rrjv 'AttoAAco- 
viav (the places lying on the well-known road between Philippi and 
Thessalonica), 20. 13, 21. 1, 3> 23 - 3^ but in 20 - *4 ff - t^ere is no 
art. 'lepovo-aXyjfjL, "lepocroXvfxa hardly ever take an art., Winer-Schm. 
§ 18. 5 (it is anaphoric in Jo. 2. 23, 5. 2 ; besides these exx. we have 
10. 22? [only in ABL], 11. 18, A. 5. 28). The case is different with 
names of countries, many of which being originally adj. (sc. y% x^P a ) 
never occur without art. : rj 'lovSata 1 , i) FaAtJWa 2 , ^ Meoworapa, 
i) Mvo-ia (Mvo-ios adj.), i) c EAAas A. 20. 2 ; for a different reason 17 
'Ao-ta like rj EvpuTTT] (rj Atf3vr) does not come under this head) takes 
the art. from early times, as one of the two divisions of the globe 
that are naturally opposed to each other, and keeps it even when 
it is used to denote the Roman province (in A. 2. 9 f. Mecro7roTa/ua, 
'Acrta and r) Al/3vt] r) Kara Kvprjvrjv are the only places with an 
article); only in A. 6. 9 do we find d-n-o KtAtKtas kclI 'Act., and in 
1 P. 1. 1 the names of all the countries are without the art. (but 
there there is no art. at all in the whole address : ckAcktois Trape7ri- 
SrjfioLs Stao-TTopas Uovrov k.t.A.). 3 Also with other names of countries 
the article is found more frequently than it would be with names of 
towns : always with ; lraAta, generally with 'Ax^ta (without art. 
E. 15. 26, 2 C. 9. 2) ; 2v/d«x, KcXtKia, Qpvyia, ApajSia are strictly 
adjectives, and therefore generally take the art., but A. 21. 3 els 2., 
KtA. 6. 9 (vide supra), 23. 34, Qpvylav koX Uafi<j>v\iav 2. 10, els 
'Apa/Siav G. 1. 17. Ua/uLfivXta, although strictly on a par with the 
others (t6 Haji^vXiov ireXayos A. 27. 5 /3 text), yet in a majority of 
cases omits the art.; it has it in A. (27. 5 infra) 13. 13: els Uepyrjv rrjs 
JIafjL<j)vXias is a chorographical gen. of the whole, § 35, 4, which abso- 
lutely requires the article (A. 13. 14, 22. 3, 27. 5, cp. 16. 12, 21. 39). 
Aiyvirros never takes the art. (except in a wrong reading of kABCD 
in A. 7. 11, and of BC in 7. 36). — River-names : 6 'lopSdvrjs 7rora/zos 
Mc. 1. 5, elsewhere o 'Iop8dvrjs a (rov rroraphv tov Tifiepw Herm. Vis. 
i. I.2; classical usage is the same) ; names of seas : 6 y A8ptas A. 27. 
27 as in classical Greek. 4 

12. The names of nations, where the nation as a whole is in- 
dicated, do not require the article any more than personal names 
require it, and it is therefore omitted in almost every instance where 
'lovSaioi are referred to in St. Paul's vindications of himself against 
the Jews, A. 26. 2, 3, 4, 7, 21, 25. 10 (as it is in the name of the 
opponent in speeches in an Athenian lawsuit, supra 10), the 

1 For which the Hebraic yij 'lotida is also used Mt. 2. 6. (Cp. ij 'lovdaia yrj 
in Jo. 3. 22, and also according to D in 4. 3. ) The anarthrous 'Ioi/5. A. 2. 9 is 
certainly corrupt. 

2 Exception L. 17. n fi€<rov XajuLapeias icai TaXiXaias, where the omission with 
2. has produced the omission with V. 

3 This is not so much an enumeration of the persons addressed as a 
characterization of them, and the omission of the art. becomes intelligible by 
a comparison with 1 Tim. 1. 2 Tifiodeu) yvrjcriy riicvcp^&s el yvqviov r. Cp. also 
Winer, § 18, 6, note 4 ; infra § 47, 6, note 1 on p. 159 ; see also § 47, 10. 

4 Cp. on the article with names of countries etc. Kallenberg Philol. 49, 515 fF. 
a v. App. p. 315. 


THE ARTICLE. [§46. 12. §47. 

exception being 25. 8 rbv vojjlov rcov 'Iouoattov, where rbv v. 'lovSaiuv 
could not well be used, while rbv v. rbv J l. (the Attic phrase, see 
§ 47, 7) was contrary to the predominant practice of the N.T. Also 
in the Pauline Epistles 'lovSaiot takes no article, except in 1 C. 9. 20 
kyevofxrjv rots 'IovSollols ws 'IovSoilos ('individual' article, those with 
whom I had to deal on each occasion ; rots dvopois etc. in the 
following clauses are similar); nor yet "EAA^s, although this 
comprehensive name, just because of its comprehensiveness (in 
opposition to /3dp/3apoi, cp, 11 on 'Acrta) in classical Greek regularly 
has the article 1 ; but the point with St. Paul is never the totality 
of the nation, but its distinctive peculiarity (cp. supra 5 on r/Aios 
etc.), consequently E. 1. 14 "EXXrjo-cv re Kal ]3apf3dpoLs is not less 
classical than Demosth. viii. 67 irdo-cv "EXXtjo-i Kal fiapfidpois (all, 
whether Greeks or barbarians), or o-o<£ots re Kal dvorjTois which 
follows it in St. Paul, see § 47, 2. On the other hand in the 
narrative of the Evangelists (and to some extent in the Acts 2 ) the 
article is rarely omitted with 'lovSaioc and other names of nations 
(Mt. 28. 15 irapd 'IouScuois, D inserts rols : 10. 5, L. 9. 52 els ttoXlv 
^EafjLapiTwv is easily explained : in Jo. 4. 9 the clause is spurious). 
An instance of a national name in the masc. sing, is 6 'IcrpayjX ; the 
art. is wanting in Hebraic phrases like yr\ 'I., 6 Xabs 'I. (viol 'I.), but 
also not infrequently elsewhere. 

§47. ARTICLE. II. The article with adjectives etc.; the article 
with connected parts of speech. 

1. Every part of speech which is joined to a substantive as its 
attribute or in apposition to it — adjective, pronoun, participle, 
adverb, prepositional expression, the same case or the genitive of 
another substantive etc. — may in this connection, and without the 
substantive being actually expressed, be accompanied by the article, 
which in the case of the omission of the substantive often takes its 
place and indicates the substantive to be supplied : thus ot totc sc. 
dv9p(i)7roL, where the omission of ol is impossible. We deal with the 
latter case first, where the additional definition stands alone with- 
out the substantive. 

The adjective, where it is not a predicate to a substantive, in most 
cases takes the article, which may be either individual or generic. 
Masc. sing.: 6 dXrjOcvos 1 Jo. 5. 20 (God), o fiovos 'the only One' 
(God) Jo. 5. 44 B (the other mss. insert #eos, cp. 17. 3), 6 Trovqpos 
'the devil,' o ayios rod Qeov L. 4. 34 (Christ), 6 StKaios (Christ) 
A. 22. 14, in all which cases the art. is individual and denotes him 
who possesses this quality koct' e£ox^v. Quite different is 1 P. 4. 18 
6 SUaios — 6 do-e/3rjs, as we say 'the righteous — the godless/ i.e. one 
(everyone) who is righteous or godless, regarded in this capacity, 

1 See Rhein. Mus. xliv. 12. 

2 In this book we also find the correct classical phrases 'AQtjvclTol irdvTes 17. 21, 
cp. § 47, 9 ; iravres 'IouScuot 26. 4 BC*E (ins. ol tfAC 2 al.). 

§47-1-] THE ARTICLE. 1 55 

where an individual is taken as a concrete instance of the genus : 
similarly with a substantive introduced 6 dyadds av6po)7ros Mt. 12. 35, 
L. 6. 45 (§ 32, 3) : frequently with participles : the usage stands 
midway between the individual and the generic use. A third mode 
of using the art. may be illustrated by Ja. 2. 6 tov 7TTa>x°v 'that 
beggar,' where it is individual and anaphoric, referring to the 
instance in verse 2 (§ 32, 3). The masc. plur. can also be used in 
this last sense, but it is more frequently generic : ot ttXovo-iol ' the 
rich,' ol ay tot a name for Christians. The fern. sing, is used ellipti- 
cally, 07 eprjfios and the like, § 44, 1 (the art. is individual : rj cpyfws 
Xwpa opposed to inhabited country). The neut. sing, is used with 
individual sense of a single definite thing or action, 2 C. 8. 14 O.T. 
to 7roXv and to oAtyov, Philem. 14 to dyadov crov 'thy good deed,' 
but more frequently with generic sense as in L. 6. 45 6 dyaOos 

av6pQ)7ro<$ Zk tov dyaOov Orjcravpov rfjs Kap&ias irpofapei to dyadov (cor- 
responding to 6 ay. dvOp., vide supra), G. 6. 10 epyafapceOa ro 
dyaOov, E-. 13. 3 to dyadov ttoUl, cp. just before tw dyaOa) epya) = T0ts 
dyaOots epyois or dyaOols epy., as Mt. J 2. 35 (the parallel passage to 
L. 6. 45) has rot (om. B al.) dyadd and irovqpd (LUA ins. t<x) in the 
corresponding clause, cp. also P. 3. 8 rot Ka/v-a — ra dyaOd. A peculiar 
usage of Paul (and Hebrews) is that of the neut. sing, adjective 
equivalent to an abstract noun, usually with a genitive : E. 2. 4 to 
Xprjo-Tov tov Oeov els /xeTdVotdV ere ayet, differing from XPW r ° Tr )' s (which 
precedes), since the adjective denotes this goodness in a concrete 
instance; 1 C. 1. 25 to paapov tov Oeov cro<f)a>T€pov twv dvOpcoiroyv k<rriv 
(cp. fMopia 21, 23), this divine attribute which appears as foolishness; 
2 C. 4. 17 to TrapavTLKa lXa<ppbv ttjs 0Xi\pea)S rjfxcov (opposed to fidpos 
ibid.), 8. 8 to Trjs vpceTtpas- aydV^s yvrfriov, Ph. 3. 8 Std to virepexov 
ttjs yvwo-ecos XpicrTov (more concrete and vivid than vTrepoxrj), 4. 5 to 
l7rtet/ces vfxwv, R (1. 18, 8. 3) 1 , 9. 22, H. 6. 17, 7. 18, 1 C. 7. 35 to 
€VO~x r }l*< ov Ka ^ €V7rdpe8pov to> Kvpico (§ 37, 7) d7repLcnrdo-TU>s. As Deiss- 
mann points out (N. B. 86 ff. [ = Bib. Studies 259 ff.]) to Sokijjuov 
vpbwv ttJs ttlo-t€0)s Ja. 1. 3 = 1 P. 1. 7 also comes under this cate- 
gory, since 6o#a/uos = 6o*a/jw)s is found in the papyri, whereas to 
SoKcpieiov (-cpaov) elsewhere means only f a means of testing/ 
This is the most classical idiom in the language of the N.T., 
and may be paralleled from the old heathen literature, from 
Thucydides in particular. 2 — The neuter singular is also occasionally 

1 In 8. 3 the sense is clearly not abstract, t6 adijixxrov rod vSfiov means the one 
thing which the law could not do. In 1. 18 to yvcocrrbv tov Oeov cpavepov ecTLv 
ev avToh Origen's explanation is ' what is known (or knowable) of (or about) 
<^od is manifest to them ' (cp. § 41, 2), and the following words suit this mean- 
ing : 6 debs yap clvtoIs i(pavepwo~ev. In that case to yv. tov Oeov may be compared 
with tcl aopcLTa avTov verse 19. The explanation of Chrys. is 7/ *yvc3ctis 7/ 7rept tov 
6eov drfky rju avTois ; in that case this is an instance of the abstract use, but the 
meaning remains the same. 

2 Still it is not to be attributed to imitation of Thucydides ; since the imita- 
tion must, according to the usual way with imitative writers of that period, 
have betrayed itself in details. Among contemporary writers, see e.g. Strabo 
3, p. 16S to evfjieTCLxeipKTTov tt)$ drjpas (Winer, § 34, 2) ; on Joseph, and others, 
see W. Schmidt de Jos. elocut. 365 ff. See also Clem. Cor. i. 19. 1, 47, 5. 
" Quite a current usage in the higher kolvti" W. Schmid, Atticism, iv. 608. 

156 THE ARTICLE. [§47.1-3. 

used collectively to denote persons, to eXarrov-rov Kp€iTTovo<$ = ol 
eXdrroves - twv KpeLTTovvv, § 32, 1 ; a peculiar instance is to 6\o6V 
Ka<f>vXov f)fxioi> 'our 12 tribes' A. 26. 7 (Paul before Agrippa), cp. 
Clem. Cor. i. 55. 6 to 8. tov 'IcrparjX (and with the same meaning 
31. 4 rb SuSeKdo-KrjTTTpov t. 'I.). Elsewhere the neut. plur. is used of 
persons, 1 C. 1. 27 f. t<x /xwpa toO Koo-pov etc., § 32, 1 ; also of things 

with the genitive, Tot KpvTTTa tmv dvOpuirteV, tov ctkotovs, tyjs KapScas, 
ttjs al(rxvv7]S E. 2. 16, 1 C. 4. 5, 14. 25, 2 C. 4. 2, t<x dopaTa tov #eo£ 
E. 1. 20, a use analogous to that of the singular (vide supra), but 
referring to a plurality of phenomena. Other instances like to. opaTa 
Kal dopoLTa Col. 1. 16 (without a genitive) need only brief mention; 
Tot KaXd - tol o-arrpd of fish caught in a net (what is good or bad) 
Mt. 13. 48. Neuters of this kind are not frequent in the Gospels. 

2. With the different ways of employing the adjective that have 
been quoted, the article is sometimes essential, sometimes unneces- 
sary. In E. 1. 14 as we have "EXX^o-tv tc Kal ftapftdpois (§ 46, 12), 
SO also (robots T€ Kal dvorJTOts : Mt. 23. 34 7rpo<^rjTas Kal o-ocfrovs, 
11. 25 =L. 10. 21 drro o-o<pQv kcuctvv€T(ov ... v^iriois, where the article 
would be as little in place as it would be if a substantive were 
employed (cp. § 46, 5 on 1 C. 15. 39), Mt. 5. 45 kirl jrovrjpovs Kal 
dyaOovs, 1 C. 1. 20 ttov crocfros ; ttov ypapL/jiaTevs ', occasionally too it 
is absent with neuter words, where its presence or omission appears 
to be more optional: Ja. 4. 17 KaXov iroidv ('some good'), Herm. 
x. 2. 3 TTovyjpbv rjpydo-aTo, but followed in 4 by to Trov7)p6v anaphoric: 
2 C. 8. 21 Trpovoovfxevoi KaXd ov fiovov Ivwttiov Kvpiov, aAAa Kal eviOTrcov 
dvQpuiritiv, in this passage the article would have broken the con- 
nection with what follows. It is not accidental that beside lv to> 
<f>avepu) (Mt. 6. 4 etc.) there is regularly found €ts <$>avepbv eXOelv 
(because the latter refers to something not yet in existence), Mc. 4. 22, 
L 8. 17 ; usually too we have kv tw kpvtttco as in Mt. 6. 4, E. 2. 29, 
but in Jo. 7. 4, 10, 18. 20 kv Kpvn-T^ (els KpvTTTrjv subst. L. 11. ^^) ; 
the opposite to which in John is not kv tw cj^avepw, but (eV) irappiqo-ia 
or </>ai/epws. Ets to fiecrov, kv tw /xecrw, Ik tov pecov are used if no 
genitive follows ; otherwise the article is dropped, not so much on 
account of the Hebraic usage (§ 46, 9), as because kv tw /xeo-o> lyzwi/ 
would be superfluously verbose in a common formula ; classical Greek 
also leaves out the article. Instances of these phrases without a 
gen. and without an art. (frequent in class. Greek) are Mc. 14. 60 
(ins. to DM), L. 4. 35 only OTA al., < Jo/ 8. 3, 9, A. 4 ; 7 DEP, 

2 Th. 2. 7. Cp. Mc. 13. 27 air* aKpov yrjs ecus aKpov ovpavov, Mt. 24. 
31, vide inf. 6, note 2; kir kvyaTov twv rjfiepwv H. 1. 1, 2 P. 3. 3 
(aryaTwv from (t<x) ecrxaTa, as in Barn. 16. 5, Herm. Sim. ix. 12. 3), 

€7r' kvydTOV TOV \p6v(OV 1 P. 1. 2 (tOV \p6vOV K, CD. Jd. 1 8), = 

d">/2*n rrnnSQ LXX.; ecus ecrxaTov tt}? y?)s A. 13. 47 O.T., 1. 8; but 
to. eVxctTa tov dvOpuirov eKetvov Mt. 12. 45 = L. 11. 26, opposed to 
Ta irp(OTa. a 

3. The participle, when it stands alone and does not refer to a 
noun or pronoun, takes the article in most cases. Thus it is often 
found even as predicate with the article, though this part of the 

a v. App. p. 315 

§47.3-4.] THE ARTICLE. i^y 

sentence elsewhere generally omits the article. There are, however, 
frequent instances where even a subst. or adj. used predicatively 
takes the art.: Mc. 6. 3 ovx ovtos lartv 6 tcktwv ; (he who is known 
bj this designation), Mt, 5. 13 vpets tare to dXas rfs yrjs, cp. 14, 
6. 22 6 Xvxvos rov crco/zaTos kcniv 6 6(f)6aXp6s (o~ov), 16. 16 o~v ef 6 
Xpi><rrds 6 vlbs rov 6eov, Mc. 15. 2 crv et 6 /3ao~iXevs iwv 'lovSaltov •« 
Jo. 1. 4; 8 etc., 1 i.e. not one salt etc. as compared with another, but 
that which alone has or deserves this title; more striking are 
Jo. 3. 10 o-v et 6 8c8do-KaXos rov 'Ioyxx^A 'the (great) teacher,' 5. 35 
Zkclvos (John) rjv 6 \vx vos ° KCU °f JL€VO s Kat faww, the light of which 
one speaks in proverbs ; Mt. 24. 45 tis dpa icrrlv 6 mo-Tcs SgvXos k<xl 
4>p6vtfjLos ; b in connection with an anarthrous noun Jo. 8. 44 gtl 
ipevo-T7]s lo-Tiv koI 6 7raT7]p avrov (a passage which from early times 
was grossly misunderstood, as though 6 irar^p were a further 
subject, see Tischend.). c So with an adjective Mt. 19. 17 c?s lunv 
o dyaOos, cp. supra 2 ad init. This use is very frequent with 
participles: Mt. 7. 15 tKtlvd eo-rtv rd Koivovvra rov av6p(*)7rov, Jo. 5. 
39 eKuvac etcrtv at paprvpovcrai 7rept epov etc., in all which cases it is 
taken for granted that something which produces this or that 
result exists, and then this given category is applied to a definite 
subject. A periphrasis of the verbal idea by means of etVat is the 
only case where an art. could not stand, § 14, 2.— On the other 
hand a participle which stands alone is occasionally found, as in 
classical Greek, without the art. even when it is the subject of the 
sentence as in Mt. 2. 6 O.T. yyovpevos, but in this case it must be 
regarded as a substantive (cp. "V\ ilke-Grimm riyticrOai ; other exx. 
in § 73, 3). 

4. Adverbs or prepositional expressions when used alone to denote 
persons or things require the article practically in all cases (ttX^o-lov 
'neighbour' is used as predicate without 6 in L. 10. 29, 36); in the 
same way the article is found governing the genitive, although all 
these modes of expression are not very frequent in the N.T. Ot 
eKeWev L. 16. 26, Ta k<xtco, Ta aVa> Jo. 8. 23, Col. 3. 1 f.; ol irtpl avrov 
Mc. 4. 10, L. 22. 49; Uerpos kcu ol crvv avrw L. 9. 32 ] d with the 
gen. ot rov Ze/SeSatov Jo. 21. 2 (§ 35, 2), toc Kaicrapos and Ta rov 
Oeov L. 20. 35, ot rov Xpcorrov 1 C. 15. 23 ; more peculiar is Ja. 4. 14 
to (A rd) rrjs avptov 'the things of the morrow,' 'what happens 
to-morrow'; 2 P. 2. 22 to tyjs dXydovs irapoipias 'the import of the 
proverb,' rd rrjs elprjvrjs R. 14. 19, 'that which makes for peace.' 
Especially noticeable are the adverbial accusatives (§ 34, 7) like t6 
kolt' ifi€ 'so far as I am concerned,' R 1. 15 (see § 42, 2 ; elsewhere 
t<x kolt €fx€ appears as subject or object, Ph. 1. 12, Col. 4. 7), to i£ 
.vpQv R. 12. 18, to Kara crdpKa 9. 5, where the insertion of the 
article puts strong emphasis on the limitation, 'so far as the 
material side is considered,' to Ka6' fjpepav § 34, 7, in which case 
the art. may be equally well used or omitted, to Trpwt (ibid.) etc. — 
Quite peculiar is L. 17. 4 in D : idv kirraKis dpaprrjoy /cat to €7rTa/cts 

kiricTTptyr) ('these 7 times,' cp. Syr. Sin., therefore anaphoric). 6 
^p. Winer-Schm. § 18, 8. flJcde v. App. p. 315. 

158 THE ARTICLE. [§47. 5-6. 

5. On the infinitive with the article see § 71. The neiit. sing, 
of the article may be prefixed, in the same way as to the infin., to 
indirect interrogative sentences, but this usage is rarely represented 
except in the Lucan writings : R. 8. 26 to yap ri 7rpoo-€v£(ofjLe6a ovk 
Oi8afJL€v, 1 Th. 4. I Ka6u)s TrapeXd/Sere 7rap' i)pi(ov to 7rw§ (oVojs without 

to FG) Set v/ms k.t.X. (Herm. Sim. viii. 1. 4, Clem. Horn. i. 6); for 
Lucan instances see 1. 62, 19. 48, 9. 46 (elo-rjXOev ScaXoyLo-pos, to tls 
av €i7] k.t.X.), A. 4. 21, 22. 30. No apparent distinction in meaning 
is caused by using or omitting the article. — The art. to is prefixed 
to quotations of words and sentences as in classical Greek : to 'Aydp 
G. 4. 25 (v.L), to dve/3rj E. 4. 9, to Ov ipovevorets k.t.X., Mt. 19. 18 
(to om. DM.), iv tw 'Ayairrjo-eis k.t.X. G. 5. 14 ; cp. R. 13. 9, H. 12. 27." 

6. The adjective (or participle) which is not independent, but is 
used as an attribute to a substantive, must, as in classical Greek, if 
the substantive has the article, participate in this art. by being 
placed in a middle position — 6 dyaObs dvOpaytros : or, if placed after 
the substantive, it must take an article of its own — 6 avOpuiros o 
dyados ; if it stands outside the article and the substantive without 
an article, then it is predicative. If it is placed between the art. and 
the subst. greater emphasis is laid on the adjective — dyadbs 
dvOpoi-rros Mt. 12. 35 : if it is placed after the subst. the emphasis 
falls on the substantive — els ttjv yrjv ty)V dyaOrjv opposed to ir'tTpav 

etc. L. 8. 8. Examples of predicative use : Jo. 5. 35 ep tt)v 

fxapTvpiav /z€t£a) = ^ /x. rjv €)(u> fxetfav Io~tiv, Mc. 8. 17, H. 7. 24, 

1 C. 11. 5 dKOLTaKaXviTTU) TYJ K€(f>aXfj = aKaTaKaXviTTOV €)(OVO-a TV)V K€cf). 

(§ 38, 3), A. 14. 10 ewrev fJbeydXrj tjj cjxovfj (26. 24) = i) 81 <j>. y elirev fxeydXrj 
v)v (also expressed without an art. by <fxovf] /xeyaA?/, the adjective 
being placed after the noun, 8. 7 etc.).* Under this head there comes 
also the partitive use of the adj., with fxecros as in classical Greek, 
L. 23. 45, Mt. 25. 6, A. 26. 13 (§ 36, 13), while for d K pos to d K pov 
with the gen. and so elsewhere to fieo-ov is used 1 (A. 27. 27 Kara 
fiecrov ttJs wktos, for which we have Kara to fjLtcrovvKTiov 16. 25, never 
as in classical Greek irepl /zeo-as vvktols : L. 16. 24 to aKpov tov 
SclktvXov avTov — Tov 8. aKpov, H. 11. 21, Mc. 13. 27) : 2 besides 
fxka-os, this use in the N.T. is only found with 7ras and oAog (where 
they are contrasted with a part), vide infra 9. — In the case of an 
attributive adjective it may also happen that the subst. has no 
article, while the adjective (participle etc.) that follows it has one, 
since the definiteness is only introduced with the added clause by 
means of the article, and was not present before. See Kiihner- 
Gerthii. 3 1, 613 f. : L. 23. 49 ywai^es al a-waKoXovOovo-ai women viz. 
those who etc., A. 7. 35 ev x et P^ dyyeXov tov 6$>dkvTos avTa an 
angel viz. that one who etc.; this happens especially with a parti- 
ciple, which may be resolved into an equivalent relative sentence, 

1 Also in older Greek (Xenophon etc.), Lobeck Phryn. 537. 

2 Mt. 24. 31 air' atcpav ovpavuv ews {rCov add. B) tiucpuv clvt&v only resembles the 
classical usage in appearance : the plural ct/cpa is occasioned by the plural 
oupavoL Cp. (t<TX aT0V ( _a ) SU P- 2. ab v. App. p. 315. 

§47-6-7.] THE ARTICLE. 1 59 

cp. § 73, 2 ; Jo. 14. 27 elprjvr]V d<£fc?7/xi vjalv, elprjvrjv ri\v l^v 

8L8(0fJLL VflLV. 1 

7. The rule which holds good for adjectives holds good in the 
classical language also for defining clauses with an adverb or 
preposition ; to a certain degree also for attributive genitives : thus 

6 'Adrjvaiiov Srjfios or 6 Srjfios 6 'A^vcuW, although 6 TraTrjp fiov is 
obligatory and 6 lttttos tov o-rparrjyov is possible. In the N.T. geni- 
tives in a middle position are frequent, and still more so are genitives 
placed after the noun which they qualify, but without a repetition of 
the article : genitives in the later position with the article are not 
frequent : A. 15. 1 tw Wei tw Mwi'xrecos (om. the 2nd tw DEHLP), 2 
1 C. 1. 18 6 Xoyos 6 tov (rravpov, d Tit. 2. 10 Ti]V SiSao-KaXiav rrjv tov 
o-uTrjpos rjixuv deov.± Cp. § 46, 12. The partitive gen. must, as in 
classical Greek, stand outside the principal clause and without a 
repetition of the article : ol irpcoToi twv 'lovSaliov (A. 28. 17 is 
different, tovs ovras tw 'Iov$. trpwTovs). Where the denning clause 
is formed by a preposition, if the clause stands after the main clause, 
the article appears to be especially necessary for the sake of clearness 
(just as there are scarcely any instances of such a prepositional 
clause used as attribute to an anarthrous subst.: in 1 C. 12. 31 el tl 
for 'in is read by D*F [Klostermann], whereby kclQ' vTrepfioXty is 
separated from 6Sbv, sc. (ykovTe), and the omission of the article in 
classical authors is by no means sufficiently attested ; in the N.T., 
on the other hand, a considerable number of instances of omission are 
commonly supposed to exist, apart from those cases where the subst. 
has additional defining clauses (infra 8), 1 C. 10. 18 pXeTreTeTbv'Io-parjX 
KaTa crdpKa, 1 Th. 4. 16 ol veKpol (ol add FGr, cp. Lat. mortui qui in Chr. 
sunt) ev XpiorT(p% a 2 C 9. 13 (rrj) a7r\oT7)TL Trjs Koivuvias 5 els avTovs 
(where, however, tjj vttot ay fj ttJs ofxoXoyias i|x»v [vide infra 8] els to 
k.t.X. precedes, and vjjl(ov is also to be supplied with kolv.), E. 6. 4 
o-vveToi(fir]fjLev aww Sid. tov /SaTTTio-fiaTOS els tov OdvaTOV (cp. 3 els tov 
6. avTov i/3(nrTicr6r]fjLev). This last instance (if our text is correct) 
appears conclusive ; but in tov 'lo-pa^X Kara o-dpKa the repetition of 
the art. was quite impossible, as the sense is 6 Kara <r. &v 'lo-p. (To-p. 
is predicate) ; so with ol KaTa o-. Kvpioi E. 6. 5 v.l. ol k. KaTa o-„, 

Col. 3. 22 id., Ta eOvr] ev o-apKi E. 2. 1 1 6 ; 6 Seo-fxios ev Kvpio) 4. I, 

1 Buttmann is not to be followed in his assertion (p. 81) that the art. had 
sometimes to stand before the substantive as well; Winer, § 20, 4 is here- 
correct. L. 5. 36 eirif$\r}na to dirb tov kclivov is a wrong reading, which is only 
by error found in Lachmann. A. 15. 23 dde\<poLS (this is the right reading, see 
the author's note on that passage), rots /caret tt)v ' AvTibxew is an address, see 
§46, 11, note 3. 

2 MwuV<?ws is found without an art. after the noun qualified in A. (13. 39), 
15. 5, Mc. 12. 26, L. 2. 22, 24. 44 (Jo. 7. 23 6 vofios 6 M. K, like 6. 33 6 &pTos a 
tov Beov »D), A. 28. 23, 2 C. 3. 7. 

3 In the preceding verse (17) we have 6 o~Tavpbs tov XptaTov ; so that 6 tov <jt. 
appears to be a kind of anaphora. 

4 Appositional clauses like Mapia ij tov 'Icuabpov sc. fJuriTrjp do not come under 
this head. 

6 Hence the reading of DEFG in R. 9. 3 tuv adeXfi&v /jlov tCov (rvyyev&v /ulov t&v 
(om. cett.) kcltcl adpKa is wrong. 

5 v. App. p. 331. a v. App. p. 315. 

160 THE ARTICLE. [§47-7-8. 

TOtS 7r\0V(TL0LS €V TO) VVV 0LtWV4 1 Tim. 6. I 7, O 7TtCTTOS kv ^Aav/oTTO) 

L. 16. 10, in all which instances the closely connected predicative . 
clause could not be severed by the insertion of the article. With a 
participle (E. 15. 31 t<ov dirtiQovvTuv kv rrj 'IovScllo) it is quite 
•obvious that the article is not repeated. 

8. If a single substantive has several defining clauses it often 
becomes inconvenient and clumsy to insert all of these between the 
article and the substantive, and there is a tendency to divide them 
so that some stand before the substantive and some after it. But in 
this case the clauses placed after the substantive do not require the 
repetition of the article, which on the contrary is only repeated in a 
case where the particular denning clause is emphasized (or implies a 
contrast), or else if the meaning would be in any way ambiguous, 
Similarly the additional article can be dispensed with if the sub- 
stantive is immediately followed by a genitive, which does not 
require the article (supra 7), and this again is followed by a further 
denning clause with a preposition : E. 3; 4 tyjv o-vveviv fiov kv t£ 
.fjLvo-TrjpLQ) tov Xp. (t^jv kv would contrast this particular crvvto-is of Paul 
with another), 1 G. 1. 13 tyjv kpLrjv dvao~Tpocj)yv ttotc kv tw 'Ioi>6\xib-/z<J. a 
Exx. of repeated article : 1 Th. 1. 8 r) sterns v/jlwv r) irpbs rbv Oeov 
kgekrjXvOev (to prevent ambiguity), 2 C. 9. 3 (ditto), R 7. 5 (ditto), 
8. 39 (emphasis). An adjective (or participle) following a genitive 
must take the art.: 6 vlos fxov 6 ayairrjTos Mt. 3. 17 ; cp. 2 C. 6. 7, 
H. 13. 20, E. 6. 16 (t<x om. BD*FG) ; if there is no art. it is a predi- 
cate : Tit. 2. 11 ktrecfrdvr} r) X^P i<s T °v @ € °v (v a( ^d. C c al.) o-amy/otos 
Tracrtv av6p(x)7rois. The presence of a numeral between the art. and 
the noun never renders a subsequent article dispensable : Ja. 1. 1 
Tats 8wSe/<a <f>v\aLs rats kv — , Jo. 6. 13, Ap. 21. 9 (since the numeral is 
nothing more than a nearer definition of the plural) : on the other 
hand an adjective (or participle) in this position can exempt a sub- 
sequent adj. from the article : 1 P. 1. 18 rfjs pLaralas vjulmv dvacrrpocfirjs 
TrarpoirapaSorov (but irarp. dvao~T. is read by C Clem. Orig.), 1 C. 10. 3 
to avrb /3pco{jLa irvevfxarLKov ? (K C DEFG al., but ttv. stands before ftp. 
in tf*AB al.), G. 1. 4 tov kveo-T&Tos atwvos Trovrjpov (k c DEFG al.; tov 
at. tov kv. 7r. k*AB a harsher reading ; so Herm. Mand. x. 3. 2 to 
■TTvevfia to SoOev tw dvdpioTra) IXapov), cp. Kiihner ii. 2 532 ; no offence 
is caused by 6 7rio-Tb<$ SovXos /cat <pp6vtuos Mt. 24. 45, where /cat carries 
over the article ; on the other hand in Ap. 2. 1 2 tyjv pofx^aiav ty)v 
Suo-TOfjLov t*|v o^etav the repetition is necessary, as in H. 11. 12 r) 
dfXfios r) Trapd to ^etAo? tt}s OaXdcro-qs r) dvapiQfirjTOS. The repetition 
of the art. before the subst. is rare (more frequent in class. Greek) : 
L. 1. 70 twv aytW Tiov air alcovos ... 7rpocj>r)T(ov only AC al. (cp. 

A. 3. 2l), 1 P. 4. 14 TO TTJS S6^7]S Kdl TO TOV 0€OV 7TV€VfJLa j but 6 dXXoS, 

ol Xol7tol, if not followed immediately by a noun but by a denning 
clause, require to be followed by an article, as in classical Greek : 

Jo. 19. 32 tov dXXov tov o"vo-Tavpo)QevTos, Ap. 2. 24 TOtS Aot7TOt$ TOtS 

1 1 C. 8. 7 rrj <rvv7}deia (al. <Tvvei§T}<reL) ecos apn rod eld&Xov, the ordinary positiop. 
oi the gen. being reversed (but r. eld. e. a. ALP). a v. App. p. 316. 

§47-8-9.] THE ARTICLE. ^ 

kv Qvaretpois (since dXX. and X. do not unite with other defining 
clauses to form a single phrase). 

9. On ofrros, 4k€ivos, cuitos ' self with, the article when used with a 
subst. see §§ 49, 4 ; 48, 10. Toiovtos is occasionally preceded by the 
art. (when referring to individuals or embracing a class) : Mt. 19. 14 
twv ToiovTQiv (referring to the previous rd Traihla) ; but this rarely 
happens when a subst. follows, 2 C. 12. 3, Mc. 9. 37 ABDL 
{toiovtovs before tovs in Jo. 4. 23 is predicative). To ti]Xiko€to ktjtos 
Herm. Vis. iv. 1. 9. "EKacrros is never followed by the art. (Attic 
usage is different); with #\os and iras (cp. supra 6; foras is 
only found in Luke with any frequency) 1 the relations are more 
complicated. Thus, with ttcLvtcs 'all' the subst., to which it 
belongs, as one which must be understood in its entirety, is 
naturally defined by the (generic) article, although irdvres in itself 
does not require the art. any more than ovros does ; hence irdvres 
AQrjvaloL as in Attic A. 17. 21, because names of peoples do not 
need the art., cp. 26. 4, § 46, 12, note 2; also in (Luke and) Paul 
Travis avOpcoTTOL A. 22. 15, R. 5. 12, 1 8, 12. i 7, 1 8 etc. (Herm. Mand. 
iii. 3), often in the weakened sense of ' all the world,' ' everybody ? ; 
cp. for Attic usage Kuhner ii. 2 545 2 (irdvres dyyeXot H. 1. 6 O.T.). 
. It is just this weakening of meaning which is the cause of the omis- 
sion; the words do not denote any totality as such, but the meaning 
approximates to that of 7ras ' every ' (vide infra), as in Trdcriv dyaOols 

Gr." 6. 6, 1 P. 2. I Trdcras KaraXaXtds (jraaav KaraXaXtdv &*), Trdcriv 

vo-Tepov/ievoLs Herm. Mand. ii. 4. But in 2 P. 3. 1 6 wdaais tolls (t. 
om. ABC) €7rto-ToAcus, E. 3. 8 irdvT^v twv dytW (twv ins. P. only), the 
art. according to classical usage can by no means be omitted; a 
similar violation of classical usage is seen in L. 4. 20 irdvTuv kv tt} 
o-wayuyrj ('those who were in the syn.'), cp. 25. 3 'A/^oVepot like 
Traces also takes the art., but only in L. 5. 7 (elsewhere used without 
a subst.). Has ' whole ' in Attic is only used of definite individual 
ideas, tfXos 'whole' also of indefinite ideas, and so in Jo. 7. 23 oXov 
avOpuyirov 'a whole man,' A. 11. 26 kviavrbv oXov, also perhaps L. 5. 5 
oY oXrjs vvktos ' a whole night ' (v.l. with rrjs) ; the latter word is also 
used with anarthrous city -names, A. 21. 31 0A77 TepoixraA^/x like -n-dcra 
(om. D) ^lepoo-oXvfjLa Mt. 2. 3 (§ 46, 11); elsewhere it always takes 
the article. Has before an anarthrous subst. means 'every' (not 
every individual like eKao-ros, but any you please) : Mt. 3. 10 nav 
SkvSpov, 19. 3 Kara Trdcrav alriav, etc.; Trdcra SiKatocrvvrj = irav b av y 
Slkollov (W.-Grr.) Mt. 3. 15 ; it is also equivalent to summus (W.-Gr.): 
/x€T<x 7r exerts Trappier ias A. 4. 29 ; Trdcrr) crvveiSrjcreL dyadrj A. 23. I (in 

1 The instances besides those in Luke are Mt. 6. 32, 24. 39 (irdvras D), 28. 1 1 
(airavra A), Mc. 8. 25 (D -rrdvra), 11. 32 v.l., ' Mc!' 16. 15 (om. D), G. 3. 28 
NAB 3 , E. 6. 13 (all mss.), Ja. 3. 2. The Attic distinction, that iras stands after 
a vowel, a7r<xs after a consonant (Diels Gott. Gel. Anz. 1894, 298 ff.), cannot be 
made in all cases even in Luke, cp. 1. 3 avwdev iraaiv, although aVas is gener- 
ally found after a consonant. 

2 So Dem. 8. 5, 42. 

3 The words iv rrj away, are probably spurious, as they vary much in their 
position in different mss. 


1 62 THE ARTICLE. [§ 47. 9-10. 

every respect). The distinction between irds with and without the 

art, appears in 2 C. 1. 4 (W.-Gr.) : 6 irapaKaXOtv rjpids iirl Trdo-y Tjj 
6\i\pei fjfjLuyv (that which actually exists in its totality), els to Svvao~6cu 
rj/jias TrapaKaXeiv tovs kv Trdcrrj OX. (any which may arise) ; so also 
A. 12. 11 irdcrrjs rrjs TrpoorSoKias rov Xaov tojv 'Ioi/ScaW (the whole 
expectation actually entertained); 1 0. 13. 2 irdo-av tt)v yvojo-tv and 
7T. t. iricrTiv (all that there is in its entirety). But in imitation 
of Hebrew we have -rrds 'lo-pa^X E. 11. 26, the whole of I., irds oikos 
'lo-p. A. 2. 36 (e£ oX-qs KapSias avrQ>v Herm. Sim. vii. 4), cp. § 46, 9 ; 
similar but not incorrect is -n-dcra o-dpg 'all flesh/ 'everything 

fleshly ' = ' all men' (1^-^) Mt. 24. 22, L. 3. 6, E. 3. 20, 1 C. 1. 29 
(never otherwise), cp. sup. irdvTes dvOpuiroi; with a negative as in 
Mt. loc. cit. ovk dv io-udr) tt. cr. like Hebr. *^b ••• tfb = 'no flesh,' § 51, 2. 
In other cases irds 6 and xa? must be carefully distinguished : Ph. 1 . 3 
errl irdcrrj rrj [Jiveta ' the whole ' (or omit rfj with DE), E. 8. 2 2 wdora rj 
KTio-is 'the whole creation/ irdo-a kt. 'every created thing' 1 P. 2. 13,, 
Col. 1. 23 (with rf) tf c D c al.), 15 irpoiroTOKOs irdcrrjs KTtWos. a A very 
frequent use is that of 7ras 6 with a participle (§ 73, 3) cp. the partic. 
with art. without nds e.g. 6 KXeirruv 'he who stole hitherto' E. 4. 28; 
without an art. Mt. 13. 19 7ravrbs aKovovros, L. 11. 4; so always if 
a subst. is interposed, Mt. 3. 10 irdv SevSpov py) ttolovv k.t.X. — 'O ird$, 
olirdvTes contrast the whole or the totality with the part, A. 19. 7 
rj(rav ol Trdvres dvSpes (' on the whole/ ' together ') a>cret 8co8eK<x (cp. 
class, examples, e.g. Thuc. 1. 60), 27. 37, G-. 5. 14 6 7ras fo/-gos ei/ evl 
Xoyio 7re7ryV^pwTat (opposed to the individual laws), A. 20. 18 rov 
TrdvTct xpovov (curb TrpwTrjs rjpiipas has preceded) ; frequently in Paul we 
have ol irdvres without a subst., 1 0. 9. 22 (a comprehensive term for 
the individual persons named in verses 20 ff. ; also in 19 irdviv has 
preceded), 1 0. 1 7, E. 1 1 . 3 2, E . 4. 1 3, 2 C. 5. 1 o tovs irdvras rjpbds (not only 
he, of whom he had previously spoken), somewhat differently in 15 ol 
irdvTes 'they all' (vwep irdvTuv has preceded), cp. Ph. 2. 21; similarly 
ra irdura in 1 0. 12. 6 (opposed to the individual thing), 19, E. 8. 32, 
11. 36 (the universe), 1 C. 15. 27 f. (similarly, and with reference to 
Trdvra preceding), etc.; also A. 17. 25 (Mc. 4. 11 v.l.). A peculiar 
Use is 1 Tim. 1. 16 tyjv d-n-ao-av (irdo-av) pciKpoOvptav 'the utmost 
(cp. supra) long-suffering which He has/ cp. Herm. Sim. ix. 24. 3 
tyjv dirXoTYjTa avrcov koX irdvav vqirior^ra. Like ol travres, t<x Trdvra 
we also have ol dfufrirepoi, rd d^orepa E. 2. 14, 16, 18 (A. 23. 8, but 
here there is no contrast to the individual things, so that d^orepa 
ray™ would be more correct) ; tovs Svo E. 2. 15 utrumque, because 
ol d^orepoi 16, 18 had to be used to express utrique. 

10. A phrase in apposition with a proper name takes the article, 

25. 13; in that case the proper name itself must generally stand 
without the art., § 46, 10 (hence the reading in A. 12. 12 tt)s 
[kABD] Mapias tyjs wTpos is incorrect, cp. ibid. 25 D*) ; on the 
other hand we have IXfiwi fivpo-el 10. 6, MvaoW tivi Kvirpup 21. 16, 

a v. App. p. 316. 

§47-10-11.] THE ARTICLE. 163 

Mai/a^i/ e H/3wSov rov rerpadpyov crvvrpocfaos 13. 1 (ibid, the MSS. 
except D* wrongly read Aovklos b Kvprjvaios) ; a the necessity for the 
person to be well known does not hold in the case of o (kiri)KaXov- 
fjievos with a surname following, or the equivalent 6 /cat, or again 
where a man is denoted by the name of his father or other relation 
by an art. and gen. (with or without vlos etc.), § 35, 2. On $apaa> 
ftao-iXeus Alyvirrov A. 7. 10 see § 46, 9. — In the case of the 
anarthrous 6e6s (§ 46, 6) the article may be dispensed with in a clause 
in apposition with it, but only in more formal and ceremonious 
language, as in the opening of an epistle, R. 1. 7 dirb deoi irarpbs rjfxcov 

KOL KVpLOV T. Xp., 1 Th. 1. I €V 6€M TTOLTpl KOI KVptCO 'I. Xp., 1 Tim. 1. I 

dirocrroXos ... kolt iirtrayr]V Seov crtorrjpos rj^uiv (cp. § 46, 11, note 3); 
similarly Kvpios (§ 46, 6) is used in apposition to 'fycr. Xp., though 
not often except in an opening clause (Ph. 3. 20). — In 6 avrtSiKos 
vpLwv SidfloXos 1 P. 5. 8 dvTtS. is treated as an adjective; Jo. 8. 44 
vpels iK rov irarpbs rov SiafioXov eorre must mean ' you are descended 
from your father (cp. 3%) the devil/ but the words have been taken 
in former (and unfortunately also in more modern) times to mean 
' of the father of the devil/ which is actually the correct grammatical 
meaning : since irarpbs if predicative (' the devil is your father ') 
should not have the art. (cf. supra 6). To avoid coming into conflict 
either with grammar or with reason, it is advisable, following K and 
Origen, to remove rov irarpbs here (cp. the sequel), or better still l/c 
rov irarpbs , with Syr. Sin. (Chrys.), cp. for the gen. § 35, 2. On 
Mt. 12. 24 see § 46, 9. 

11. Where several substantives are connected by kcii the article 
may be carried over from the first of them to the one or more sub- 
stantives that follow, especially if they are of the same gender and 
number as the first, but occasionally too where the gender is 
different: Col. 2. 22 Kara rd kvrd\p,ara koX SiSacrKaXtas rcov dvOpioiruv, 
L. 14. 23 els rds 68ovs Kal cjypaypovs, 1. 6, Mc. 12. 33 v.l. (Winer, 
§ 19, 3). Inversely there are a number of instances where with the 
same gender and number the repetition of the article is necessary or 
more appropriate : A. 26. 30 6 ftao-iXevs Kal 6 rjyeficov (different per- 
sons), 1 C. 3. 8 6 cf)vrev(i)v Kal 6 irorcfav eV dcrtv (ditto), Jo. 19. 6 ot 
dpxiepels Kal ot virrfperai (whereas dp\. with irpeo-fivrepoc or ypafiparets 
may dispense with a repetition of the art., Mt. 16. 21 etc.), /xera^v 
rov Ovcriacrrrjpiov Kal rov olkov L. 11. 5r (Mt. 23. 35). Also in the 
case of re Kal repetition generally takes place, though in A. 14. 6 we 
have rcov Wviov re Kal (twv add. D) 'lovSataiv. There is frequently a 
variety of readings, but the alteration in the sense is for the most 
part unimportant. The article appears to be dropped, not unnatur- 
ally, between two clauses in apposition connected by /cat, in Tit. 2. 13 
(rrjv) €iri<fidveLav rrjs 86£r]s rov pieydXov Oeov Kal ctcottJ/dos rjfxQiV 'I. Xp., 
cp. 2 P. 1. 1 (but « here reads Kvpiov for Oeov, probably rightly, cp. 
11, 2. 20, 3. 2, 18) ; however in Titus loc. cit. o-corrjpos 07/x. T. Xp. may 
be taken by itself and separated from the preceding, in which case 
cp. for the loss of the art. supra 10; Winer, § 19, 5, note 1. 

a v. App. p. 316. 

1 64 PERSONAL, REFLEXIVE AND [§ 48. 1-2. 


1. The nominatives of the personal pronouns — eyw, a-v, fjfiets, ypels 
— are, as in classical Greek, not employed except for emphasis or 
contrast." Jo. 4. 10 crv av yrrjcras avrov (not, vice versa, I thee), 
A. 4. 7 ev TTola 8vvdjjL€L €7roirjcraT€ tovto vfxels ; (people like you, this 
miracle), Jo. 5. 44 7rws Svvao-de vpb€Ls b 7TLcrTevcraL (persons like you), 
39 vfieis c $OK€LT€ kv avTais £cor)v alwviov e'x €tI/ (y ou yourselves), $& ov 

a7T€CTTetAeV €K€lVOS, TOVTCQ Vfl€LS d OV 7TLCrT€V€T€ (IkCLVOS — VpLCLS Contrasted), 

I. 30 V7rep ov ey(b e €L7rov (I myself), 42 crv tt Stpoi/..., crv kXyjOyjo-y} 
Krj<f>as (cp. 49, this particular person as opposed to others), E. 5. 32 

TO [AVCTTrjplOV TOVTO JJL€yOL kcTTLV' ijtO 8e AeyO) €L<S XpLCTTOV Kat €t? TTjV 

€KKkr]crtav (subject and speaker contrasted)^— As an equivalent for 
the third person in the N.T., especially in Luke (Mt., Mc; also 
LXX.), avr6s is used = 'he ' with emphasis (besides 6 in 6 8e, 6 [ikv ovv, 
§ 46, 3) 1 , L. 2. 28 (the parents bring in the child Jesus) /cat avTos 
(Simeon) JSe£aTo avTo k.t.X. (in Simeon's own narration of the event 
it would run /cat eyco eSegdfirjv), 1. 2 2, 2. 50 (/cat avrol), 9. 36 (ditto), 

II. 14 (/cat atrrb), L. 24. 21 rj\7ri£ojJL€v otl hvtos kvTiv 6 peXXuv 
XvTpovo-Oat tov 'lo-parjX (here too eyw would be used if the story 
were told in the first person), Mc. 14. 44 ov av c^tA^o-w, avTos Icttiv 
(he is the man), A. 3. 10 kirey tvoxr kov 8e avTov, otl olvtos (BDEP ovtos, 
cp. Jo. 9. 8 f.) rjv 6 ... KadrjfJLtvos (1st pers. otl eyo) rj/JLrjV, cp. Jo. 9. 9), 
cp. Herm. Mand. vi. 2. 5 ytVcoovce otl clvtos Icttlv ev o~oL : Mt. 12. 50 
(cp. with oxjtos Mc. 3. 35), 5. 4 ff. Also avTos Se, Mc. 5. 40 (6 Se 
A), L. 4. 30, 8. 37 etc. (even where the name is added, Mt. 3. 4 
avTos 8e 6 [0 om. D] 'liodvrjs, ' but he, John' ; Mc. 6. 17 avTos yap 
6 [6 om. D] 'Hp.^the feminine of avTos is not so used : avTiq should 
be written in L. 2. 37, 7. 12, 8. 42 /cat avTrj (/cat auros is also a 
wrong reading in 8. 41 BD, and in 19. 2 where D reads ouros 
without /cat).* Classical Greek employs sometimes ovtos, sometimes 
€/c€tvos (or o), § 49, 2 and 3 ; in modern Greek avTos has become a 
demonstrative pronoun and dropped the meaning of 'self (for 
which 6 lSlos is used). Of the oblique cases, the genitive alone is 
used with emphasis in this way (class, e/cetvou etc.): L. 24. 31 au7w 
Se 8tr)voLx0r)crav ol o^QaXpLOL, Mt. 5. 3, 10, cp. infra 7 (Herm. Sim. v. 
7. 3 avTov yap €o~tlv iracra l£owta, viii. 7. I a/cove /cat rrepl avTiov). 

2. A prominent feature in the Greek of the N.T. (and still more 
in that of the LXX.) is the extraordinary frequency of the oblique 
cases of the personal pronouns used without emphasis. The reason 
for this is the dependence of the language on Semitic speech, where 

1 Cp. Buttmann, p. 93 ff. ( Winer, § 22, note 4). The use is an old one, 
though foreign to Attic writers : Horn. II. iii. 282 avrbs &rei0"E\eV?7*' ix^ T0} ••• 
Tj/uieU 8£, i he . . . we. ' * 

abode/ gh Xm App. p. 316. ** V. App. p. 331 

§ 48. 2-3.] POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. 165 

these pronouns are easily and conveniently attached as suffixes to 
substantival and verbal forms, and are therefore everywhere 
employed, where the full expression of the thought requires them. 
The case is different with classical Greek, which has separate words 
for them, of which some indeed are enclitic, but those for the 
3rd person and for the plural are dissyllables, and therefore it 
expresses these words only so far as they are essential to the 
lucidity of the sense, while in other cases it leaves them to be. 
understood. The tendency of the N.T., then, is to express the 
pronoun in each case with every verb which is joined with other 
verbs in a sentence, and not, according to the classical method, to 
write it once and leave it to be supplied in the other instances ; 
again, the possessive genitives /mov, <rov, avrov etc. are used with a 
quite peculiar and tiresome frequency, being employed, to take a 
special instance, with reference to the subject of the sentence, in 
which, connection the simple pronoun cannot possibly stand in 
classical Greek, but the reflexive is used instead, vide infra 6. Still 
no rule can be laid down, the practice depends on the pleasure of 
the writer, and superfluous pronouns are often omitted by the 
better mss. As in classical Greek * my father ' may be expressed 
at the option of the writer by 6 Trarr)p jjlov (6 e/zbs ir.) or o Trarrjp, so 
also in John's Gospel Christ speaks of God as 6 Trarrjp /xov, and 
more often as 6 Trarrjp, 8. 38 lyw a kopaKa irapd T<p irarpl (fiov add. 
fc*D al.) AaAco, koll vfieis o$v a rjKovo-are Trapa rov Trarpbs (so without. 
vjjLoyv BLT) ttoi€lt€ : Mt. 27. 2 4 direr fyaro rds x 6 */ 50 ^- The pronoun 
is omitted in other cases or connections: A. 16. 15 irapeKaXecrev 
(sc. rj/xas) Xeyovo~a (without rjpLiv), 19 €TriXaj36jJLevoi rov YlavXov /cat 
rov StAaV etAtfvcrav k.t.A. (instead of €7rtAa/3. rov II. ... el'A/c. avrovs). 
On the other hand we have 22. 17 iyevero pioi vTroo-rpeif/avn — Trpoo-ev- 
\ofJL6vov fxov — yevecrdat fie (§ 74, 5), a 7. 21 eKreOevros Se avrov, dvetXaro 
avrbv — /cat l^Opkxparo avrov 6 (vide ibid.; also for combinations such 

aS Mt. 6. 3 (TOV TTOLOVVTOS ... flYJ yVWTO) f) dpi(TT€pd (TOV, Mt. 8. I, 

V.l. e^eXOovTL avray . . . rjKoXovOrjcrav avra}). On the ace. and inf. 
instead of the inf. see § 72, 2 and 3; on avrov etc. after the relative 
§ 50, 4. 

3. The longer and unenclitic forms of the pronoun of the 1st pers. 
sing. — tjjiov, e/xot, e/xe — are employed as in classical Greek to give 
emphasis or to mark a contrast ; they are generally used after a 
true prep, (also eVe/cev), except after irpos : Mt. 25. 36 (N e/*e), 
Mc. 9. 19 (do.), A. 22. 10 (do.: in 8 i/xe w*AB); with irpos the short 
forms are used even where there is a contrast, Mt. 3. 14 eycb \peiav 
€\(o vtto crov /3aTrrio-0r]vai, /cat o-v Zpxv Trpos fi€ (where Tisch. writes 
irpos fie; the classical language certainly knows nothing of an 
accented /xe); only in Jo. 6. 37 71750s k\ik is read by nearly all MSS., 
in the next clause irpbs e/xe is read by «E al., Trpos /xe ABD al. (we 
also find Iva-mov fxov in several mss. in Lc. 4. 7). Cp. Kiihner 
Gr. i. 3 , i. 347. It follows that in the case of the second person, 
the forms o-ov etc. after prepositions other than irpos should be 
accented. Of the strengthened Attic forms eycoye, e/xotye there are 
no instances in the N.T. a b v. App. p. 316. 


4. There is a wide-spread tendency among Greek writers, when they 
speak of themselves, to say tj|j.€is instead of I7&). The same meaning 
is often attributed to many instances of the 1st pers. plur. in St. Paul; 
in his letters, however, there are usually several persons from whom, 
as is shown in the opening clause, the letter proceeds, and where this 
is not the case (Pastoral Epp. ; Romans, Ephesians), no such plurals 
are found: cp. e.g. Gol. 1. 3 tvyapio-Tovixev with E. 1. 15 Kaycb ... ov 
Tra-uo/xat ev^aptcrTcov. In Iv. 1. 5 6Y ov tXafiopLev \dpiv kcu a7ro(TToXr)v 
k.t.X. while the language clearly applies to Paul himself (diroo-r.), 
yet the words are not limited to him (xdptv), but the persons 
addressed, and indeed all Christians (cp. just before, 4 rov Kvpiov 
07/xwv), are fellow-partakers in the x^pts ; so that eXafiov x^P LV would 
not have been suitable. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
however (an epistle, moreover, which has no introduction at all with 
the name of the writer), appears really to use the plur. and sing, 
without distinction, 5. 11, 6. 1, 3, 9, 11 etc., 13. 18 f. (plur. -sing.), 
22 f. (e7reo-TetAa, fj/jLuv): and even in those Pauline Epistles, which are 
indited in the name of several persons, it is not always possible 
appropriately to refer the plural to these different persons, e.g. in 
2 C. 10. 11 fF. Similarly in 1 John 1. 4 ypd^ofxev is apparently 
identical in meaning with ypdcfro) (2. 1 and elsewhere). — Quite 
different is such a plural as we meet with in Mc. 4. 30 ttws 6/xotc6- 
crco/^ev rrjv /Sau-iXetav rov Oeov, where in a way that is not unknown 
to us the audience are represented as taking part in the deliberation. 05 

6. The pronoun of the 3rd person civtov etc. is very frequently used 
with a disregard to formal agreement, where there is no noun of the 
same gender and number to which it may refer. The occurrence of 
the name of a place is sufficient ground for denoting the inhabitants 
of it by avriov: A. 8. 5 &[\nr7ros KareXOcbv els ttjv ttoXiv rrjs 2a//,ape«xs 
€KY)pvcrcrtv a-uTois rbv xpta-Toi/, 16. 10, 20. 2, 2 C. 2. 12 f., G-. 2. 2 etc.; in 
the same way koo-jjlos . . . avrois ibid. 2 C. 5. 19, irdv ...avrois (K*avTcp) 
Jo. 1 7. 2, see § 32, 1 (class, usage is similar). Further we have L. 23. 5of. 
f3ov\evrr)s . . . avr&v, i.e. the members of the high council (the refer- 
ence being understood from the preceding narrative) ; R. 2. 26 lav rj 
aKpo/3vcrTia rd SiKaaofJiara rov vojjlov <£>v\dcro-r}, i.e. 6 aKpofivo-Tuav €>(a>v, 
and therefore followed by avrov ; 1 P. 3. 14 rbv <j>6(3ov avrwv, the 
persecutors, who are understood from the sense and context, E. 5. 12 
vir avT&v, those who belong to the <tk6tos of verse 11, etc. To these 
must be added instances of construdio ad sensum (§ 31, 4) such as Mc. 
5. 41 KpaTijcras rrjs X €t pvs r °v 7rai8cov Xeyei av-rfj, and on the Other 
hand cases where the subject referred to is obvious without further 
explanation, as in Jo. 20. 15 avrov, 1 Jo. 2. 12 avrov. 1 Cp. Buttmann, 
p. 92 f., Winer, § 22, 3. The relative pronoun is sometimes used in 
a similar way : Gr. 4. 19 reKvia pov, oik, Jo. 6. 9 TratSdpiov, 6s (v.l. o), & 
Ph. 2. 15 yeveds crKoXids, kv oh; also A. 15. 36 Kara irdorav 7toXlv, iv 
ais, 2 P. 3. T Sevrepav r)§rj €7ricrTo\tfv, kv ats (i.e. rats Svo~lv €7riorT.) etc. 

7. The reflexive pronouns — k/mavrov, oreavrov, eavrov, with plural 

1 In Jo. 8. 44 (6 xar^p) a-urov (§ 47, 3) must be referred through ^erjarris to 
orav \a\rj to ipevdos, if the text is correct. A common interpretation is to take 
* and his father ' as part of the subject (there is an interpolated reading cos /cat, 
< as also '), see above § 47, 10. a b v. App. p. 316-317. 


for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd persons eavrwv (§ 13, l) 1 — have in the N.T. 
been to some extent displaced by the simple personal pronoun ; but 
a more noticeable fact is that they have had no share at all in the 
extended use which the personal pronouns acquired (supra 2). When 
the pronoun is employed as a direct complement to the verb, referring 
back to the subject, no other than the reflexive form is found in all (or 
nearly all) authors; but if the pronoun is governed by a preposition, 
there are at least in Matthew numerous instances of the simple pro- 
noun being used ; finally, if a substantive governing the pronoun is 
interposed, and the pronoun has no emphasis at all (so that classical 
writers would omit it altogether, supra 2), then the reflexive form is 
never employed. Thus, in proportion as the number and the inde- 
pendent character of the words interposed between the pronoun and 
the subject becomes greater, the rarer becomes the use of the 
reflexive. (For instances of this in classical writers, Kiihner ii. 2 
489, 494.) Direct complement: Mt. 6. 19 f. Orjo-avpifere vplv 
dr)o-avpov<$ (instead of kavroli). 2 After a preposition : Mt. 5. 29 f., 
18. 8 £ . fidXe &7rb crov, 6. 2 prj cra\7ricrr)S eprrpocrOev crov, 11. 29 apart 
rov £vyov fjiov icjy vpas, 13. 1 3 rrapaXafBe pera crov BDI (creavrov JtfKLM). 
The simple form is still more frequent where two pronouns are con- 
nected : 18. 15 eXey^ov ... pera^v crov koI avrov, 17. 27 60s dvrl epov 
Kal crov. (In Semitic speech, where the reflexive is expressed by a 
periphrasis with 125&S 3 , there can be no question of this kind of 
expression in these cases.) Yet even Mt. has zlirov Iv lavrols 
(9. 3, 21), pepicrOdcra Ka& eavrfjs (12. 25), 15. 30 eyovres peO' eavruv, 
etc. — In the case of a possessive genitive attached to a substantive, 
the MS. evidence is often conflicting, not however in the case of 
epavrov or creavrov, but only with eavrov. The only instance with 
ipavrov is 1 C. 10. 33 to ipavrov crvpc^epov (of creavrov there is no 
example); then with eairrwi/ = 2nd pers. we have H. 10. 25 rrjv 
€7no-way(oyi)v eavrov, with eavrov, -r)s, -wv between the art. and the 
noun (infra 8) we have Mc. 8. 35 v.l., L. 11. 21 rrjv eavrov avXr)v (D. 
t. a. avrov), 13. 34 rrjv eavTTJs vocrcriav (ra vocrcria avrrjsD), 14. 26 {eavrov 
stands after the noun in KB), 33 (avrov D al.), also 16. 8 els rr)v 
yeveav rrjv eavrwv ; frequent in the Pauline Epp., e.g. R,. 4. 19, 5. 8, 
16. 4, 18. On the other hand, the simple pronoun is also used e.g. 
in A. 28. 19 rod edvovs pov, ibid. {3 text rr\v \pvxqv pov, G. 1. 14 pov 

1 The corresponding use of eavrov for (i/mavrov or) aeavrov, which is far from 
l>eing established for classical prose, rests even in the N.T. on doubtful 
authority : Jo. 18. 34 a<f> eavrov av rovro \eyei.s, but dirb aeavrov fc*BC*\L : 
R 13. 9 = G. 5. 14 O.T. cbs eavrov read by FGLP and FGLN*P in the respective 
passages ; cp. Herm. Vis. iv. 1. 5 rjp^dimrjv \eyeiv iv eavrcp (K* as ; ifiavr. N c ), 
Sim. ii. 1 ri av iv eavru fyreis (N is wanting), ix. 2. 5 : Clem. Horn. xiv. 10, 
xvii. 18 for ifiavr ov. Buttm. 99. On vfi&v avrCbv 1 C. 5. 13 vide infra 10. 

2 We also have e(5o£a etxavry with inf. in A. 26. 9, whereas classical Greek in 
a case like this where no stress is laid on the reflexive, says 6okco jjloi. On 
eavrov as subj. of the accus. and inf. see § 72, 2 ; Buttm. 236 {avrov for eavrov 
A. 25. 21). 

3 Hence in translating from Semitic the reflexive is interchangeable with rty 
■ftvxw avrov : cp. L. 9. 25 eavrov 8e drrdXeaas rj fyfjuoodeis with 24 anoXiay rrjv \f/. 
■avrov. Cp. Winer § 22, 7 note 3. 


bis, 16 rbv vlbv avrov, etc.; on e/zos o-og, vide infra 7. — Other instances 
of reflexives: Mt. 12. 45 irovqpoTepa eavrou (DE* avrov), Mc. 5. 26 
rot 7rap' mvrrjs (avrfjs ABL), L. 24. 27 rot 7re/ot eavrov (avrov DEL al.); 
on the Other hand, Ph. 2. 23 dcfii8o) ra 7repl kfxe, R. 1. 15 to /car' e/ze 

irpodvfAos sc. tlfAt (§ 42, 2). A loose but intelligible use is 1 C. 10. 29 
Aeyw ovyJ r^y eavrov. — The mode of strengthening the reflexive by 
means of avros, frequent in Attic, appears in a few instances (from 
the literary language) : 2 C. 10. 12 avrot ev eavrois eavrovs /^erpovVres, 
1. 9, A. 5. 36 D KareXvOrj avros 6V eavrov (avrov D) ; but in Jo. 9. 21 
the pronouns must not be connected : avros (he himself) irepl eavrov 
XaXrja-et (cp. R. 8. 23). — On lavrwv for aAA^Aw, vide infra 10. 

8. The possessives e//,os, o-os, 07/xerepos, v/^erepos are employed in 
classical Greek to represent the emphasized genitives e/xov, 0-0 v etc., 
whereas if there is no emphasis on the pronoun possession is denoted 
by the genitives /aov, o-ov, ^cof, v/x-wv ; the position of the latter, as 
of the corresponding avrov, -77s, -c3i/ of the 3rd pers., if the subst. 
takes the article, is after the substantive (and the article is not 
repeated), or even before the article, as in Mt. 8. 8 iva pov vtto ttjv 
(TTeyrjv, 1 Th. 3. IO I8elv v/zwv to irp6(TOiTrov y 13 o~ry\pi^ai vfiiov rots Kap- 
Stas, or lastly, if the sabst. has an attribute before it, the position of 
the pronoun is' after the attribute: 2 C. 4. 16 6 e£(o rj/jiQv dvOp^iros, 
Mt. 27. 60 kv t$ Kaiv§ avTov /xF^/x,eta), 1 P. 1. 3, 2. 9, 5. 10 etc. (Butt- 
mann, p. 101). On the other hand, the possessives take the position 
of the attributes, as in classical Greek is the case with emphasized 
genitives like e^cavrov, a-eavrov, eavrov, tovtov, €K€lvov ( = his). The 
noticeable point in the N.T. is that while e/xov and crov are not used 
as possessives (except in connection with another gen., R. 1G. 13 
avrov kcu e/xou, 1. 12), the emphatic fyoiv (in the Pauline Epp., Bjitt- 
mann 102) undoubtedly is so used (in the position of the attribute ; 
cp. Soph. Oed. R, 1458 fj pev r}p,Q>v /zoipa), and hence it happens that 
the words ry/xerepo? and v/^erepos are by no means represented in all 
the N.T. writings (there are not ten instances of each, none at all e.g. 
in Mt., Mc.) : 1 C. 16. 18 to kfxbv 7ri/ev/za /cat to v/xwt/, 2 C. 1. 6 V7rep tyjs 
vfjLwv Trapa/cA^creaj? (object, gen., which however may equally well be 
expressed by the possessive : R. 11. 31 tw v/zereow eAeet, 1 C. 11. 24 ttjv 
ifMTjv dva/jLvrjcriv, W. § 22, 7, cp. for class, exx. Kiihner ii. 2 486, note 11), 
2 C. 9. 2 to vfJLuyv (v.l. e£ vpL.) £r}Xos, 1 C. 16. 17 ro v/xwi/ (yfieTepov 

BOD al.) vorTeprjfxa, 1 Th. 3. 7, Clem. Horn. »x. 15 tw v/xwv (reflex.) 
TrapaSetyfjLaTt. Still the possessive is also found in another position 
in 17/zwv yap to TroXtrev/Aa Ph. 3. 20 (stronger emphasis, for which ro 
yap rjfjt,. ttoX. was not sufficient), and there are similar exceptions in 
the case of reflexive genitives : ttjv kirio-vvayuyrjv lavrwv H. 10. 25 
{i.e. Vfuov avrwi/), A. 21. 1 1 8rjcras eavrov tovs 7r68as (there is a wrong 
reading avrov, which would refer to Paul), G. 6. 4 ro epyov eavrov, 
ibid. 8 els T7]v crdpKa eavrov (avrov D*FGr, cp. the V.l. in E. 4. 16, 
Mt. 21. 8, 23. 37 ; Herm. Vis. iii. 11. 3 eavrwv [2nd pers.] rds [xepifivas, 
Sim. iv. 5 tov Kvpiov eavrwv [3rd pers.], v. 4. 3 ; in general, according 
to what has been said above [see 6] avrov deserves the preference). 
Emphatic avrov = his is found in the position of the attribute: 
Tit. 3. 5 Kara to avrov e'Aeos (opposed to preceding rjfJLels ; to eX. avrov 

§43.8-10.] POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. i6g 

D*EFG), H. 2. 4 Kara tt)V clvtov dekrjo-tv, P,. 11. ii tw olvtcov irapa- 
TTTioixaTL f) <r(x)T7)pia tols Wveo-iv 3. 24, 1 Th. 2. 1 9, Ja. 1. 1 8 (v.l. eavTov) ;. 
cp. supra 1 (in P. 3. 25 kv t$ avrov cu/xa™ the gen. is from avTos 
'self'). 1 For this classical Greek uses iKttvov (which may even have 
reflexive force, Kiihner ii. 2 559, 12); the latter appears in the correct 
position (that of the attribute), in Jo. 5. 47, 2 C. 8. 9, 14, 2 Tim. 
2. 26 etc. (exception P. 6. 21 to t£Xos eKetvojv) ; cp. with tovtov etc., 
P. 11. 30, 2 P. 1. 15 (but contrary to rule are A. 13. 23 tovtov 6 Oebs 
dwb tov cnrepfJLaTos, cp. on Ph. 3. 20 above; Ap. 18. 15 01 epiropoi 
tovtujv; H. 13. 11). — 'Efios is very frequent in John, not very frequent 
in the remaining writers (o-os besides its use in Gospels and Acts 
occurs only three times in Paul) ; ifios (like o~6s) is also used reflex- 
ively for ZfiavTov (o~tavTov), "Philem. 19, Mt. 7. 3 (3 Jo. 4), Herm. 
Sim. i. 11 to o-bv epyov epydfav (also occasionally in class. Greek, 
Kiihner ii. 2 494a)? — The possessives are also used predicatively 
(without an art.) : Mt. 20. 23 = Mc. 10. 40 ovk Iq-tiv Iphv tovto Sovvac 
(for which we have in the plur. vfiuv Io-tlv 1 C. 3. 21 £, cp. supra 
§ 35, 2) ; with a subst. inserted ephv /2/xo^a ko-Tiv ha k.t.X. Jo. 4. 34, 
13. 35; under other circumstances also the art. may be dropped: 
Ph. 3. 9 psr) exaav €fxr]v StKaiocrvvrjv ('a righteousness of my own') 
tyjv eK vofiov (cp. § 47, 6), as with lSlos, infra 9, and with eavTov 
L. 19. 13 8eKa SovXovs eavTov ('of his'). 

9. A common possessive pronoun is i'8ios, which in classical Greek 
is opposed to kolvos or SrjpLoo-tos, while in modern Greek the new 
possessive 6 eSiKos fiov, o-ov etc. has been fully developed (with the 
N.T. use agree also the lxx., Philo, Josephus, Plutarch etc., 
W. Schmidt Jos. elocut. 369). It is opposed to kolvos A. 4. 32 
(H. 7. 27); or means 'peculiar/ 'corresponding to the particular 
condition' of a person or thing, 1 C. 3. 8, 7. 7 etc. (class.); but 
generally means simply ' own/ = eavTov etc. (like class, olKetos) : 
Jo. 1. II els tol iBia fjXOev, kol ol iSlol avTov ov TrapkXafiov, 42 evpicrKti, 
Toy dSeX<pbv tov lSlov St/xwra, Mt. 22. 5 els tov l8lov dypov (without 
emphasis = els t. d. avTov), 25. 14; with v.l. eavTov L. 2. 3. It is 
joined with the gen. avTov etc. (a use which in itself is classical) in 
Mc. 15. 20 (v.l. without avTov, D also omits t8ta) A. 1. 19, 24. 23, 
Tit. 1. 12, 2 P. 3. 3, 16. Ken-' I8tav is frequent = class. KaO y eavTov 
'by Himself/ Mt. 14. 13 etc.; toYa lfcao-T(p 1 C. 12. 11 is classical. — It 
is not surprising that the article is occasionally dropped, cp. supra 8 
ad fin. (1 C. 15. 38, a v.l. inserts to; Tit. 1. 12); in Tit. 2. 9 SovXovs 
Seo-TroTats 18101s viroTao-crecrOaL there is a kind of assimilation to the 
anarthrous SovXovs (somewhat as in H. 12. 7, § 46, 7); 2 P. 2. 16 
eAcy^tv ISias irapavofxias is due to Hebrew usage like wap. avTov 
(§ 46, 9). — On the periphrasis for the possess, gen. with Kara see 
§ 42, 2. 

10. ^avTcov is found (as previously in classical Greek) for the 

1 In H. 7. 18 dia to avrijs dcrSeves kclI avoocpekis there is no emphasis on the 
pronoun, but here there is no substantive : rrjv avrijs do-devetav would scarcely 
be written. (Still in Herm. Mand. vi. 2. 2 we have rds avr&v ivepyelas without 
emphasis, cp. Clem. Horn. xiv. 7, 10.) a b v. App. p. 317. 

l7 o POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS. [§48. 10-11. §49. 1-2. 

reciprocal dMVjXuv in 1 C. 6. 7, Col. 3. 13, 16, etc., and often in con- 
junction with it for the sake of variety : L. 23. 12 dXXtjXuv ... irpbs 
eavrovs with v.l. in kBLT irpbs avrovs, a use of the simple pronoun 
which here appears to be inadmissible. The individual persons are 
kept separate in dXXos irpbs dXXov A. 2. 12 =?r/)bs aAA^Aovs; cp. ets 
tov 4Va for dXXrjXovs (Semitic) § 45, 2. 

11. A*t6s 'self has its classical usages (usually followed by an 
article, which however does not belong to avros, and is therefore 
sometimes omitted, as in avrbs 'Irjo-ovs Jo. 2. 24, according to 
§ 46, 10) ; it is naturally found also in connection with the personal 
pronoun, where it is to be sharply distinguished from the reflexive : 
eg vfjicov olvtuv A. 20. 30, like avrbs eyw, avrol vpeis (in the 3rd pers. 
it is of course not repeated: tva avrovs fyXovre G. 4. 17, 'the men 
themselves'); even in 1 C. 5. 13 egdpare rbv irovrjpbv eg vpuv avruv 
the words v. a. are not reflexive, although this quotation is taken 
from Deut. 17. 7 egapels rbv it. eg vfi(ov avrcov, where eavruv could not 
be used because of the singular egapefo — For avrbs ovros (eKeivos) 
Luke uses avros in the phrases ev avrrj rrj copa, rjfiepa L. 12. 12, 13. 31, 
20. 19, A. 22. 13 etc., ev a. tw icaipQ L. 13. I (cp. eg avrrjs, § 44, 1); 
SO also ev avrrj rfj ocKta 10. 7. 


1. The demonstrative pronouns of the N.T. are : ofrros, IkcCvos, and 
avros, which is beginning to be so used, see § 48, 1, remnants of 
o, tj, to, § 46, 1-3, remnants also of 68c, § 12, 2, which is not even 
used correctly in all cases (rdSe Xeyei to introduce some information 
is correct in A. 21. 11, Ap. 2. 1 etc.), just because it belonged to the 
language of literature and not to the living language : L. 10. 39 /cat 
r[]8e rjv d8eXcf>rj K.r.X. instead of ravrr) a (Ja,. 4. 13 iropevo-opeOa els rfjv- 
Se rr)v rroXiv appears to mean 'such and such a city,' Attic rr)v Kal 
rr)v, as in Plat. Leg. 4. 7 2 1 B rrj Kal rrj dripia 1 ; the passage in 
James is followed by 15 iroirjo-ofxev rovro rj eKetvo with the same 
meaning). Toiao-8€ for rocavrrjs (correctly introducing some informa- 
tion following) only occurs in 2 P. 1. 17. 

2. The uses of oStos and Ikcivos are, on the whole, clearly distinguished. 
Ovros refers to persons or things actually present : Mt. 3. 1 7 ovros 
eo-nv 6 vlos pov etc.; to persons or things mentioned, = one who con- 
tinues to be the subject of conversation, as e.g. in Mt. 3. 3 ovros 
(John, verse 1 f.) yap eo-nv 6 prjOels K.r.X., especially used after a 
preliminary description of a person to introduce what has to be 
narrated of him, Mt. 27. 57 f. avOpwiros irXovo-ios dirb ' 'AptpaOaias ... 
ovros irpoo-eXQuv K.r.X., L. 23. 50 fi\, Ja. 3. 2, 4. 47, A. 1. 18 ovros 
/xev ovv K.r.X., etc.; somewhat different is Kal ovros in Luke in the 
continuation of a description, L. 2. 25 f. Kal ISov dvdpuiros rjv ... £ 
ovo/xa ^vfxeiov, Kal 6 <x. ovros StKatos K.r.X., cp. 17, 7. 12, 8. 41 (with a 
wrong reading avrbs, see § 48, 1), 19. 2 (the same v.l.; only D has 

1 With this is rightly compared rrjvde rr\v Tj/j.e'pav in Plut. Qu. conviv. i. 6. 1. 
a v. App. p. 317. 


ovros); cp. also /cat rrjSe (sup. 1), 10. 39. Slight ambiguities (where 
several substantives precede) must be cleared up by the sense : 
A. 8. 26 avrrj ecrrlv eprjjjios, referring to fj 686s, not to Td£a; L. 16. 1 
avOpwTros ns r\v irkovcrios os et^ev otKovopiov, Kal ovros (referring to 
olk.) SieftXrjOrj avrw (to dvd. 7rA.). It very commonly stands in the 
apodosis, referring back to the protasis : Mt. 10. 22 6 Se viropLeivas els 
reXos, ovros o-wOrjcreTou, R. 7. 15 ov yap 6 OeXo) [, Tovro\ a irpdcro-a), dXX' 6 
jjLLo-oj, rovro ttolco ; but tovto is also found in the preceding principal 
clause, as a preliminary to a subordinate clause with on, Xva etc. ; 
1 Tim. 1. 9 ctSws rovro, ore K.r.X., b l Jo. 2. 3 lv touto) ywtoo-KOfiev..., 
Idv K.T.A..J also before an infinitive or substantive, 2 C. 2. 1 
eKpiva efxavrco rovro, rb fxr) TrdXtv ... eXOelv, 2 C. 13. 9 rovro kclI 
€vx6fjie9a, rrjv vpLuv Kardpncnv. St. Paul frequently also has 
avrb rovro, just this (and nothing else), E. 9. 17 O.T., 13. 6, 
Ph. 1. 6 TreiroiQois avrb rovro (with reference to their endurance 
already emphasized in verse 5), also 2 P. 1. 5 ; an adverbial use 
(like Tt) is rovro avro just for this reason 2 C. 2. 3, § 34, 7. 1 Another 
adverbial use is rovro piev ... rovro Se on the one hand ...on the 
other hand, both ... and H. 10. 7,^ (Attic; literary language). We 
further have Kal rovro idque ' and indeed ' 1 C. 6. 6.(k. ravra CD b ), 
8 (ravra L), R 13. 1 1, E. 2. 8 (Att. Kal ravra, Kiihner ii. 2 791); on 
/cat ravra with part. ' although' H. 11. 12 etc. see § 74, 2. — Ofrros 
appears to be often used in a contemptuous way (like Latin iste) of 
a person who is present: L. 15. 30 6 vtos o-ov ovros, 18. 11 ovros 6 
reXa>VT]s, A. 17. 18. — On ov pierd ttoXXols ravras rjpiepas A. 1. 5 see 
§ 42, 3. 

3. The much rarer word Ikeivos (most frequent, comparatively 
speaking, in St. John) may be used to denote persons who are 
absent, and are regarded in that light : vpels — l/cetvot are opposed in 
Mt. 13. 11, Jo. 5. 39, A. 3. 13, 2 C. 8. 14, fj[ieis (lyw)-!*. in Jo. 3. 
28, 30, 1 C. 9. 25, 10. 11, 15. 11 ; of course the conversation must 
have turned on the persons indicated, to make the pronoun in- 
telligible at all. 2 It is never used in the In.T. in connection with, 
or in opposition to, ovros (Buttm. p. 91) ; but see Herm. Mand. iii. 5 
€K€iva (the past)-ra{rra (the present). Frequently in the N.T. 
€K€iV7j rj rjpiepa is used of the last day, Mt. 7. 22, 2 Th. 1. 10. But 
it is especially used in narrative (even imaginary narrative) about 
something that has been previously mentioned, and that which is 
connected therewith. When thus used, it is distinguished from 
ovros, which refers to something which is still under immediate 
consideration. Thus confusion between the two pronouns is not 
often possible. Mt. 3. 1 ev 81 rats ^/xepats €K€ivais in the transition 
to a fresh narrative, cp. Mc. 1. 9, 8. 1, L. 2. i ; but Luke also uses 
ravrats in this phrase, 1. 39, 6. 12 (D e/cetWs), A. 1. 15, 6. 1 (v.l. 

! 2P. 1. 5 Kal ai/ro Be rovro (v.l. k. a. tovto 5e) cnrovdiqv Tracrav irapeLaeveyKavres 
might be a corruption of kcit' avrb d£ tovto. 

2 It is used contemptuously or invidiously of an absent person in Jo. 9. 28, 
cp. o$tos, sup. 2 ; in A. 5. 28 D has tov dvdp. eKelvov for r. a. tojjtov of the other 
MSS. (the latter is due to i-rrl r£ ovS/mclti Totircp in the same verse). 

a b v. App. p. 317. 

1 72 DEMONSTRATIVE PRONOUNS., [§ 49. 3-4. § 50. 1. 

£k€iv.), 11. 27 (B clvtolls, cp. § 48, 1) : Mt. 7. 25, 27 ttJ ot/act iKtivrj 
(referring to 24 and 26 ; other subjects, namely the rain etc., have 
intervened), 8. 28 Sta ttJs 6§ov tKav-rjs (where the possessed persons 
dwelt; the road itself has not previously been mentioned), 9. 22 tt7ro 
rrjs copas eK€Lvi]s (when these words were spoken), 26, 31, 13. 44 rbv 
dypbv €K€ivov (referring to tw dypa> ibid., but again there has been 
interruption caused by other subjects intervening). 1 — In the apodosis 

(Cp. OVTOs) : MC. 7. 20 TO 6K TOV dvOpiDlTOV iKTTOpeVOfieVOV, €K€iVO (that 

other thing) kolvol rbv dv0po)7rov, Jo. 10. 1 (Ik. opposed to the speaker), 
similarly R. 14. 14, 2 C. 10. 18 ; with weakened force and indefinite 
reference ('he') Jo. 14. 21 6 ey/ov t<xs k vto Xds fiov ..., £k€lv6s Io-tlv d 
ayaTrwi/ /xe, cp. 6. 57, 2 C. 10. 18, Herm. Mand. vii. 5, etc.; even 
with reference to the speaker in Jo. 9. 37. It is not often followed 
by the word or clause referred to : Mt. 24. 43 e^etvo (that other 
thing, see 42) 8e ynwKeTe on (B,. 14. 15 Zk€lvov ...vtrep ov opposed 
to <rv), Jo. 13. 26 'he,' cp. supra. Its meaning is also weakened to 
6 he' ('they') in Jo. 10. 6 ravr-qv rrjv irapoi\xiav el-rev avrots 6 'I^o*., 
€K€ivol 8e (for which ol Se, avrol 8e are synonyms, §§ 46, 3 ; 48, 1 ; but 
N* here has simply kol ovk) and so frequently in John in unbroken 
connection with the first mention, 9. 9, 11, 25, 36; similarly 'Mc/ 
16. 10 ff. 2 

4. The substantive that is connected with ovtos or eKelvos takes 
the article as in classical Greek ; it is only necessary to consider 
whether the words are really to be connected, or whether the sub- 
stantive or the pronoun forms part of, the predicate: Jo. 2. 11 
ravTrjv (obj.) hroir\o~ev dpxyv tcov <r^/z.etW, L. 2. t avry) (subj.) airo- 
ypacj)rj TTpuTT] Zyevero (on the agreement in gender see § 31, 2), 
A. 24. 21 [Mas ravTr]s c/xoi^s fjs eKeKpa^a otl — 't) c/xdvyj rj eyevero rjv /ua 
avrrj (predic.) — The position of the pronoun, either before the article 
or after the substantive, is quite optional : ovtos (e Kayos) 6 avOponros 
or 6 a. o$tos (eKelvos). 


1. The relative of definite reference 6s (by the ancients called 
apOpov vitotclktikov, § 46, 1) and that of indefinite reference 6o-tis are 
no longer regularly distinguished in the N.T.; and with this is 
connected the fact that the latter is almost entirely limited to the 
nominative (§ 13, 3), although in this case it is used by nearly all 

1 See also Jo. 1. 6 ff. iyfrero avdpwrros ?.. 'Icjclvtjs' ovtos (vide sup. 2) 9j\6ev eh 
fAapTvpiav, — tva, -rravres iricrrevcrujcnv SV avrov' ovk i)v ckcivos to (puis (the discourse 
Dasses from John to Jesus) ; 7. 45 ?}\0oi> odv ol vTrrjpe'Tai Tpbs rovs dpx^peXs, kciX 
elirov avrots eKetvot, (those who were at a distance from the scene of action, and 
were previously mentioned in verse 32 ; hut once again the text is doubtful). 

2 The Johannine use of eKelvos is exhaustively discussed by Steitz and A. Butt- 
mann in Stud. u. Kr. 1859, 497: 1860, 505: 1861, 267: see also Zeitschrift 
f. w. Th. 1862, 204 for the passage 19. 35 /cat iiceivos oWev k.t.X. (i.e. the narrator). 
In this passage, however, everything is doubtful, so far as criticism is concerned. 
There is doubt about the whole verse, which is wanting in e and Cod. 
Fuldensis of the Vulgate, about this particular clause, about the text of this 
clause, as Nonnus read iKetvov oida/j.ev, etc. Cp. Stud, und Krit. 1902, 128 ff. 
The fact that so many theologians have based their theories as to the origin of 
the 4th Gospel on this verse and the meaning ordinarily attached to it is only 
explicable on the ground of a complete neglect of textual criticism. 

§50.1-2.] RELATIVE PRONOUNS. 1 73 

writers (least of all by John). A similar case is that of 00-09, which, 
except in Hebrews, is used only in the nominative and accusative. 
Mt. uses 60-Tts correctly in general statements, 5. 39, 41, 10. 33 etc., 
but also os 10. 14, 23. 16, 18; esp. 7ras oa-rts 7. 24, 10. 32, 19. 29; 
but iras os occurs in L. 14. 33, A. 2. 21 O.T., G. 3. 10 O.T., -n-avrl <S 
L. 12. 48 ; Mt. also uses this phrase where a subst. is inserted, 
12. 36 irdv prjfjba dpyov o, 15. 13 iracra (frvreia rjv (Traxra ipvxy V TLS 
A. 3. 23 O.T.). "Ocrrts is also correctly used in connection with a 
subst. of indefinite reference : Mt. 7. 15 twi/ \fev8o7rpo(j>r]T(ov otrti/es 
(description follows), 24 dvSpl ^povlpu oo-rts etc. (but Lc. uses os : 
6. 48 dv$pix)7rco os, 49 oiKtav y): and to denote a definite person in a 
case where the relative sentence expresses the general quality, 
Jo. 8. 53 } A/3padfjL, 6'0-Tts dirkOavev (who was a man who died), 
A. 7. 53 otrtves eXd/3eTe k.t.X. (people who); but these limits are 
often exceeded esp. by Luke, and oinves, r/rts are used = ot, r/ : 
Tlerpov kolI 'Iwav^i/, otru'es A. 8. 15, rrjv TrvXrjv r/Tts 12. 10, ttoXlv 
AavcS, rjris L. 2. 4 (particularly where a participle follows, and the 
meaning of ot, rj would not have been clear, A. 8. 15, 17. 10 otrives 
7rapayev6fjL€voty y Ap. 12. 13 rrjv ywaiKa r)ns €T€K€V rbv dpcreva. This 
use of 60-Tts for os is very old in Ionic Greek, Kiihner Gr. ii. 2 906 
(Herod, ii. 99 7roAtv rj-rts vvv Me/z<£ts KaXelrai). In the Pauline 
Epistles this use cannot be established, since in E. 16. 3 ff. os and 
oo-rts are alternately used, according as a mere statement of fact is 
made (os), or a characteristic is given (7 otrti/es da-iv eVto-^/xot kv tois 
a7roo-ToAots, ot /cat irpb kfxov ykyovav kv Xpto~TO)) \ a also in G. 4. 24, 26 
yJTL<s = fj tololvtt], cp. 1 C. 3. 17, Ph. 1. 28, 1 Tim. 3. 15. — As an 
instance of 6's for oo-rts one may further note ovdels (ov) ... 6s (for 
6Wts) ov, § 75, 6. — 8<nr€p has been given up, § 13, 3. 

2. The &p0pov vTroTaKTiKov, 8s, -fj, 8 justifies this appellation chiefly in 
the fact that, like the article (a. ttpotclktikov) which follows a sub- 
stantive and introduces a further definition, its case is assimilated 
to that of the substantive, even though in conformity with the 
relative sentence it should have had another case, which is generally 
the accusative (Attraction or Assimilation of the relative). 1 In 
this peculiarity of Greek the N.T. (like the lxx.) is entirely in 
agreement with the classical language. Exceptions occur (as in 
classical Greek, Thuc. ii. 70. 5) where the relative clause is more 
sharply divided from the rest of the sentence (through the insertion 
of other defining words with the noun and through the importance 
of the contents of the relative sentence) : H. 8. 2 rrjs o-Krjvrjs tt)s 
aXTjGivTjs, % €7rr)gev 6 Kvptos, ovk avOparrros ; but in other passages there 
is always a v.L, Mc. 13. 19 aw' dpxqs KrtVews, rjv (rjs AC 2 al., om. rjv 
€kt. 6 6. D) tKTicrev 6 6eos, Jo. 2. 22 and 4. 50 tw Aoyw ov (a> A AX 
al., DA al.), 6 4. 5 x°>p£ov 6 (ov C*D al.), 7. 39 (o£ rDG al.), Ap. 1. 20 
(<Sv B); Tit. 3. 5 ovk ig epyoiv raw kv §LKO,LOO"vvr), a (&v C b D c al.) 
kiroirjo-afiev r)/ji€is is an instance of the case above-mentioned of 
separation through the insertion of defining words. (On A. 8. 32 f. 
see the author's commentary on that passage.) On the other hand 

1 ' / 0<rrts, in N.T. as in classical Greek, is never assimilated. ~. \ 
a b v. App. p. 317. \\ 

174 RELATIVE AND [§ 50. 2-3. 

it is not only the so-called accusative of the inner object (§ 34, 3) 
which is capable of assimilation (E. 4. 1 tyjs kX^o-€ws rjs eKX-jOrjre, 
A. 24. 21, 26. 16, Jd. 15), but occasionally the dative is assimilated 
as well : A. 1. 2 2 axpt rrjs rjfxepas rjs dvekrjp.cfrO)] (cp. L. 1. 20D, LXX. 
Lev. 23. 15, Bar. 1. 15), R. 4. 17 Karevavrt ov iTTLarrevrrev Oeov, i.e. k. 
tov 0. § €7r. (see below on the attraction of the substantive into the 
relative clause). In addition to this, the preposition which should 
be repeated before the relative may be omitted (class.): A. 1. 21 
ev iravrl XP® VL ? ( SG - * v ) & ^* 2 € ^ s T ° %py ov {sc. els) o, 39 dirb TrdvToov 
(sc. d<j>) fiv, Herm. Sim. ix. 7. 3 pera iravruv (sc. /x€#') &v (but in the 
case of a sharper division of the relative clause, the preposition is 
repeated : A. 7. 4 els rrjv yrjv TavT-qv, ets rjv i 20. 18 aTrb irpwfrjs rj/jiepas, 
a<£' 779, Jo. 4. 53 (ev) €K€tvTj rfj copa, ev y). It is readily intelligible 
that the Greek relative includes our demonstrative 'he' or 'that'; 
it is therefore used by assimilation in the case which would belong 
to the demonstrative : L. 9. 36 ovSlv 3>v = tovtq)v a, Jo. 7. 31 TrXetova 
<5v (do.), 17. 9 irepl £>v — irepl rovTiov ovs ; also dv6 f &v=dvrl rovnav 
oVt, e<j> <S = eirl rovro) on, Store = Sea tovto on ; cp. adverbs of place 
§ 76, 4. More noticeable is the occasional attraction of the noun 
into the relative clause, in which case the article belonging to the 
noun, being incompatible with the dpdp. viror., must be left out, 
while the noun itself is now assimilated to the case of the relative ; 
of course even where there is no assimilation of the relative, a 
similar attraction of the noun into the relative clause, with the case 
of the relative, may take place (so in classical Greek, Kiihner ii. 2 
922: e.g. w dvSpl irdvres evvot rjvav, direOavev). But the noun is not 
placed immediately after the relative, except in the case of r)}xepai 
L. 1. 20 dyjpi rjs rjfxepas yevrjrai ravra, —a. rrjs rjfi. (iv) fj cp. supra, 
A. 1. i, Mt. 24. 38 (same phrase). 1 * On the other hand: L. 19. 37 
iraaroyv 8>v eTSov Svvdpieiov, 3. 19 irept rrdvTOJV &v iiroirjcrev irovrjpayv 6 
'Hpaxfys (iw irov. &v ***), cp. A. 25. 18 2 , and with no assimilation of 
the relative : L. 24. 1 (fiepovcrcu a rfToifxao-av dpco/jLara, Jo. 6. 14 o 
€TrotrjG-€v crrjfjLeiov. The way in which the following exx. should be 
resolved is ambiguous: L. 1. 4 irepl wv KarrjxyOrjs Xoyw, = either 
irepl tcov X. ovs or tQ>v Aoywi/ irepl &v (in view of passages like 
A. 18. 25, 20. 24, 25. 26 the first is probably correct); R. 6. 17 
virrjKovo-are els ov Trape§60r]Te tvttov 8i8a)(fjs, probably tw rvirco els ov ; 
with omission of a preposition A. 21. 16 (but not D) dyovres trap' a> 
£evLO-Qa)pLev Mvacrcovt = irpbs Mvacrcoi/a, Iva £ev. irap } aww (§ 65, 8). 

3. If the noun is not attracted into the relative clause but stands 
in front of it, it is still occasionally assimilated to the case of the 
relative, a practice of which instances appear in classical authors 
(attractio inversa, Kiihner ii. 2 918, 4): 6 1 C. 10. 16 rbv dprov ov 

kAco/Z€v, ov)(l Kotvoyvia ... evTiv ; A. 10. 36 tw \6yov ov ... ovros eo~n 

1 The regular phrase is kv r)\x. y Mt. 24. 50, L. 1. 25 (plur.), 12. 46, without 
the art. , which is occasionally omitted in Hebrew before "rc^, infra 3 ; without 
iv L. 17. 29 f. xi Tjfxepa (in 30 T> reads iv rrj tj/ul. - 77 diroKoKvipdy). 'H/x. is separ- 
ated from the rel. in Herm. Mand. iv. 4. 3 d<£' tjs julol irapedbdrjs yfiepas. 

2 2 C 10. 13 KCLTCL TO /UbirpOV TOV KCLVOVOS, od €/UL€piO~eV 7)/UUV 6 OeOS fJL€TpOV = TOV /JLETpOV 

od, although in this case the appositional clause has been very loosely annexed. * 
a b v. App. p. 317. 2 * v. App. p. 331. 


7rdvT<x)v^(KvpLos should be removed) 1 , Herm. Sim. ix. 13. 3, L. 12. 48 
izavri a) eSoOrj tto\v, ttoXv fyrrjo-ovo-LV Trap 7 avrov (in sentences of this 
kind the nominative is elsewhere used with anacoluthon, see § 79), 
Mt. 21. 42 rbv XlOov ov k.t.X. O.T.; peculiar is L. 1. 73 opKov ov 
cofxoo-ev instead of rov opKov ov (not a case of 'protasis,' but a supple- 
mentary amplification ; the passage is strongly Hebraic, § 46, 9 ; 
Hebr. *W5& Dipip G-es.-K. § 130, 3).— Attraction with a relative 
adverb : Mt. 25. 24 crvvdyets odev ( = eKeiOev oirov) ov ScecrKopTrLcras, cp. 
Kuhner ii. 2 915, note 6. 

4. One piece of careless writing, which was specially suggested by 
Semitic usage (Hebr. v ^^ ; Aramaic has similar expressions with 
'I), though it is not quite unknown to the classical language 2 , is the 
pleonastic use of the personal pronoun after the relative. Mc. 7. 25 

yvvrj, rjs €*X €V T0 Ovydrpiov avrrjs (a. om. rD) irvevfia aKadaprov, 1. 7 
= L. 3. 16 ov ... avrov, Ap. 7. 2 ots i860rj avrots, 9, 3. 8, 13. 8, 20. 8* 
Clem. Cor. i. 21. 9 ov fj ttvotj avrov (frequent in lxx., Winer, § 22, 4); 
with these exx. the following are quite in keeping: Ap. 12. 6, 14 

07TOV ... €K6L (Q1I5 ""V&D^), 17. 9 07TOV . . . 67r' OLVtGv, Mc. 13. 1 9 Ota OV' 

yeyovev Toiavrrj, 9. 3 01a ... ourcog, Ap. 16. 18 ohs ovk eyevero ... 
ttjXlkovtos a-eccr/jibs ovtco fieyas : in Gr. 3. 1 kv vplv after o?§ is merely 
a v.l. ; but in 2. 10 o /cat eo-irovftacra avrb rovro TTOLTJo-at there is a 
reason for the expression, since avrb in this sense (' just ') cannot be 
joined to the relative, and therefore required to be supplemented by 
tovto % — Another quite different negligent usage, which is also 
unobjectionable in the classical language, is the linking on of a 
further subordinate clause to a relative clause by means of Kal ... 
avrov : 1 C. 8. 6 e£ ov rd Trdvra Kal rj/jLels els avrov (a second ex. in 
the same verse), Ap. 17. 2, 2 P. 2. 3 (Kuhner ii. 2 936). 

5. Relatives and interrogatives become confused in Greek as in 
other languages. The relatives in particular, and as is only natural 
the indefinite oa-ns especially (but also 09, where it can conveniently 
be so used), are frequently employed in the classical language in 
indirect questions (beside the interrogatives), a usage which, how- 
ever, is wanting in the N.T. (in A. 9. 6 the reading of tf ABC on for 
Tt must be rejected in view of the general practice elsewhere); 
ottolos alone is employed as an indirect interrogative: 1 C. 3. 13, 
G-. 2. 6, (oTTotot 7roTe), 1 Th. 1. 9, Ja. 1. 24 (elsewhere expressed by 
TTOLotycp. 07Tws L. 24. 20. The reverse use of the interrogative tis 
instead of the relative oo-tis is Alexandrian (and dialectical), c as e.g. 
in a saying of Ptolemy Euergetes ap. Athen. x. 438 fin. rlvi f) rvx 7 ) 
SlScjctl, Xa/Sero). 4 " In the N.T. we have A. 13. 25 rlva fie virovoelre 
etvat, ovk el fit lyto, 5 cp. Mc. 14. 36 ov ri eyto OeXa), dXXd ri crv (ovx 
6 — dXX' o D), L. 17. 8 erot/xacroi/ Tt Seiirvrjcro), Ja. 3. 13 n's crocjibs Kal 

1 See the author's edition of the Acts, and above § 35, 2. 
2 Cp. Kuhner ii. 2 937 (Hypereides Euxen. § 3 &v ... tqiutwv). 

3 So Herodot. 9. 44 (Kuhner Ioc. cit. note 2) 8s . . . detirepos ofrros. 

4 Cp. O. Immisch Lpz. Stud. 1887, 309 ff. 

5 [W. H. txt. reads ri ifxe virovoe'ire elvai ; ovk elfd iyd). Tr.] 
a b c v. App. p. 317. 

176 RELATIVE AND [§ 50. 5-6. 

iTTKTTTjfKjjv ev vjuv, Seward) (or ris ... vfxtv; an interrogative sentence). 1 
The employment of 6<rris or even of 6s in a direct question is quite 
incredible, except that o,n appears to be used as an abbreviation for 
ri 6,tl ' why ' : Mc. 9. 1 1 e7n]p<x>r(i)V avrbv Xeyovres' o,rt Xeyovonv ol 
ypaixfxaTels K.r.X., 28 e7rr)p(i>r(i)V avrov' o,tl rjjuLets ovk rj^vv^Q-qjxev 
eKpaXetv avro ; (Btari ADKII), 2. 16 (ri ore AC al., Start tfD): cp. 

lxx. 1 Chron. 17. 6 o,ti = *T/3^ But Jo. 8. 25 rrjv dpxqv o,n koX 
XaXio vfitv ; means according to classical usage (a meaning, it is true, 
which cannot be paralleled from the N.T.): you ask, why (so in 
classical Greek A says ris icrrtv ; to which B replies ocrns ; sc. epojras 
you ask who he is?) do I speak to you at all? (tt?i/ dpxrjv = oXm). 
The passage could also be interpreted, ' (do you reproach me) that 
(ort) I speak etc. V Cp. for the direct question Clem. Horn. vi. n 
ri Kal rr]V apXV v haXeyofxat ; xix. 6 eirel ri Kal rrjv dpyrjv grjrti ; and 
for the preceding question of the Jews <rv to el ~R. 9. 20, Arrian 
Diss. Epict. ii. 1. 22 crv ovv ris el; i.e. how comes it that you wish 
to play this part ? In Mt. 26. 50 eralpe !<£' o irdpei, eralpe must be 
a corruption either of atpe or eralpe atpe : ' take what thou art come 
to fetch ' (D has eralpe after irdpet) ; at any rate Chrys. had an 
imperative in his text (see the present writer's edition). 2 

6. It has already been remarked in § 13, 5 that the interrogative 
ti's (both in direct and indirect questions, supra 5) is also used for 
TroTcpos ' which of two 1 ?': Mt. 21. 31 to Ik tQ>v Svo, 9. 5, L. 7. 42 etc. 
A stereotyped phrase is irorepov ... 77 utrum in indirect double 
questions, but found only in Jo. 7. 17 (Herm. Sim. ix. 28. 4). T& 
is for the most part used substantially ; beside the adjectival rts 
(rts fiacrtXevs L. 14. 31, ri crrjixelov Jo. 2. 18, rts jxeroxq etc. 2 C. 
6. 14 ff.) irotos is also used with little distinction from it, as also in 
classical Greek — nowhere, however, in inquiries after persons, but in 
such phrases as ev iroia e^ovcria, 7rota> dyo/za/rc (A. 4. 7), iroia w/oa, e/c 7roia<$ 
kirapylas (A. 23. 34), ha ttolov vojulov (R. 3. 27), 7roi(p craj/xart (the pron. 
having its strict sense, how constituted) 1 C. 15. 35, cp. Ja. 4. 1471-060, 
yap rj (rj om. B) (car) vjjlQv (how miserably constituted ; on the other hand 
it is not elsewhere found with an article, rts being used in that case : 
Mc. 6. 2 rts r) o-o<£ta, whence coming, A. 10. 21 rts r) alria, 17. 19 
etc.); with an adj. ri is always used: ri dyaOov, kcckoV, ireptco-ov. 
The two words are united tautologically (for emphasis) in ek riva 
rj irotov Katpov 1 P. 1. 11 ; there is a diversity of reading in Mc. 4. 30 
ev rivi (jroia AC 2 D al.) TrapaftoXrj; the two are used interchangeably 
in A. 7. 49 7rolov oTkov . . . rj to T07ros. In L. 24. 19 Trola stands by 
itself, referring to 18 ra yevopeva. Beside -n-olos we have also the 
later iroTcnrds (old form 7ro6Wos, of what country by birth, like 
aXXoSa-iros, r)(jLe8a7r6s ; for 7ror. = irotos Lob. Phryn. 56), the latter 
being used of persons as well as things: irorairo^ ecrrtv ovros, o§ k.t.X., 
Mt. 8. 27 ( = to dpa Mc. 4. 41, L. 8. 25), ris Kal 7rora7rrj rj yvvrj 
L. 7. 39, 2 P. 3. 11 ; of things Mc. 13. 1, L. 1. 29, 1 Jo. 3. 1 (how 
constituted, also how great or mighty; like volac = rives in Herm. 
Mand. viii. 3 Trorairai eWiv at 7rovrjpiat). 

1 2 v. App. p. 331. 

§ 50. 7. § 5i. 1.] INTERROGATIVE PRONOUNS. iyy 

7. The neuter ri is used as predicate to Tavra (as in class. Greek, 
Kruger Gr. § 61, 8, 2) in ri (av) etrj ravra L. 15. 26 (tl QeXei tovto 
cTvcuD), A. 17. 20 DEHL (v.l. riva), Herm. Vis. iv. 3. 1; it is 
necessary in Jo. 6. 9 dAAa ravra ri ecrnv (of what use are they) 
€ts roarovrovs ; further we have avSpes, tl ravra TTOidre A. 14. 15, as 
in Demosth. 55. 5 Teto-ta, rl ravra iroids (what are you doing 
there ?), cp. with a singular demonstr. pron. L. 16. 2 Tt tovto olkovo) 
7repl o-ov ; (rt predic.). 1 In the passage of Acts ri might also be 
understood in its very common meaning of ' why ? ? (class.), Mt. 6. 28, 
L. 2. 48 etc.; to express this meaning besides 6\a ™ we have also 
Iva ri (sc. yevqrai), A. 7. 25 O.T. tVa Tt (Ivari) e<f>pvagav eOvrj etc. 
(found in Attic), and rl o,n (on), written fully in ri yeyovev on rjfXLv 
/xeXXecs ZfjLcfravifeiv creavrov Jo, 14. 22 (where 6Vt = oY o,Tt, just as 

Tt is used = 8ta Tt), a A. 5. 4, 9, L. 2. 49, v.l. in Mc. 2. 16, v. sup. 5 (also 
LXX.). 6 A. 12. 18 ri apa 6 TLerpos eyevero, 'what was become of him/ 
is like Attic ri yeVw/zat 2 ; SO L. 1. 66 ri apa rb TratSiov ecrrat ; A. 5. 24 
ri av yevocro tovto, *• what would be likely to happen in the matter/ 
'how it would turn out' (ri predic); in an abbreviated form ovros Se 
ri Jo. 21. 21, 'what will become of him T Tt ' how ' = Hebr. S"»W 
(Win. § 21, 3, note 3), Mt. 7. 14 ri crrev^ (v.l. 6Vt), L. 12. 49 Tt 
#eAw (lxx.). — Tt 7rpb? 17/*^ ( 5C - e, °" T 0> ' what does it concern us?' 
Mt. 27. 4: riirpos ere Jo. 21. 22 (cp. § 30, 3 ; Att. has also riravr ipoi; 
Kuhner-Gerth ii. 3 4 1 7, and so 1 0. 5. 1 2 Tt yap jjlol tovs eg** Kpivecv; where 
it takes the inf. as in Arrian Diss. Epict. ii. 17. 14, Win.); ' Tt e/zot kol 
o-ot (sc. eo-Tiv, Kiihner-Gerth ib.; but also a Heb. phrase as in 2 Kings 
3. 13) Mt. 8. 29 etc., § 30, 3 ; St. Paul has Tt yap E. 3. 3, Ph. 1. t8 
(what matters it ? or what difference is it ?) and ri ovv (sc. epovfiev) 
R 6. 15. The masc. is used predicatively in iy<b ris rj/x^v A. 11. 17, 
cp. 2 Kings 8. 13. — Neut. and masc. pronouns are combined (as in 
class. Greek) in Tts Tt dpy Mc. 15. 24, Tts Tt SceirpayfiarevcraTo (what 
each man had etc., but tfBDL read Tt Sieirpaynarevo-avTo), L. 19. 15 
(Herm. Vis. iii. 8. 6, Mand. vi. 1. 1). 


1. TVs, rl, as in classical Greek, is both substantival and adjectival; 
when used in the latter way, its position is unrestricted, so that it 
may even stand before its substantive, so long as there is another 
word in front of it, Kai Tts avj]p A. 3. 2, iva tl pLeraSio xaptoyxa R. 1. 11; 
rives stands at the beginning of the sentence in contrasts : nvh (p-ev) 
...t. Se 1 Tim. 5. 24, Ph. 1. 15 (Demosth. 9. 56), and even where 
there is no contrasted clause: nvh 8e A. 17. 18, 19. 31, Jo. 7. 44 
etc. (Demosth. 18. 44). — Special usages: Ja. 1. 18 airap^qv nva r*2v 
avrov KTtoyxaTtov, softening the metaphorical expression ('so to 

a Also Mt. 26. 62 = Mc. 14. 60 (sup. 5, note 1) tl odroi aov Karafiaprvpovo-Lu 
resolves itself into tl ecrrLv 3 odroi <r. k.* 

2 Joseph, de vita sua, § 296, ol eXkoctl xp v0 ~ri tl yey ovcktlv ; Xenoph. Hell. ii. 3. 
17 rt 'iaoLro 7} 7roXtreta (W.-Gr.). 

x * v. App. p. 331. abc Vm App. p. 318. 



speak/ 'a kind of first fruits'); with numbers in classical Greek it 
has the effect of making them indefinite, 'about/ but in A. 23. 23 
(cp. Herm. Vis. i. 4. 3) we have nvas Svo 'a certain pair' (to which 
corresponds eh ns L. 22. 50, Jo. 11. 49; cp. § 45, 2); with an 
adj. (freq. in class. Gk.) fofiepd ns I/cooy^ H. 10 ; 27, it has an inten- 
sifying force like quidam, Kiihner-Gerth ii. 3 663 (vTreprj^avta 77-0 A A?/ tls, 
Herm. Mand. vi. 2.5); but in A. 8. 9 eTval nva eavrbv peyav, fieyav ap- 
pears to be an interpolation, and nva to be used emphatically, a person 
of importance, cp. 5. 35, Kiihner-Gerth 664 note 1 ; so etvai n ' to 
be something important' G. 2. 6 (Sokovvtqjv ehai rt, =Plat. Gorg. 
472 a, Gercke), 6. 3.— Tis is used for 'each 7 in Herm. Sim. viii. 2. 5 
KaOm <x£ios !a-T6 ns KaToiKeiv, cp. 4. 2 (A. 15. 2 according to the 
Syriac). — On to to be supplied with a partitive word see § 35, 4. 

2. 'No one/ 'nobody' is ovSeh or ^Sets (on -#ei's, see § 6, 7 fin.; 
ovOerepos Clem. Horn. xix. 12); in addition to these we have the 
Hebraic ov (p)) . . . 77-as, where the verb becomes closely attached to 
the ov (or p?) : Mt. 24. 22 ovk dv ko-uQy) irao-a crdp^ like Hebr. 
*D3...J^D> R« ^- 2 ° ( C P- Ps- 1^*2- 2 X L. 1. 37 ovk doWaT^cret Trapa tu> 
6eQ> ttolv prj/JLa ( = nothing), Ap. (7. 16, 9. 4) 21. 27, A. 10. 14 cwoOTOTe 
tcfrayov irav kolvov (on the other hand ov iras with no words inteven- 
ing^'not everyone/ as in class. Greek, Mt. 7. 21, 1 C. 15. 39); 7rds 
... ov (also Hebraic jip . . . ^3 has the same meaning, but is less harsh 
than the other, Ap. 18. 22, 22. 3, E. 4. 29, 5. 5, 2 P. 1. 20, 1 Jo. 2. 
21, 3. 15 ; this use is excusable, where a positive clause with dXXd 
follows, containing the principal point of the sentence, Jo. 3. 1 6 tVa 
7ra? 6 TTicrrevcDV p) diroXrjTai, dXXd eyrj k.t.A., 6. 39, or where such a 
clause is clearly to be supplied as in 12. 46. 1 Efs ... ov is stronger 
than oixkts, Mt. 10. 29 eV ... ov ireo-eZrai, 5. 18, L. 11. 46 etc., as in 
Demosth. 30. 33 rj ywi) fiiav rjpLepav ovk lxiP ev(rev (Kriiger, § 24, 2, 2); 
the same is true of the divided ov8e eh A. 4. 32, Mt. 27. 14, Mc. 5. 37 
D, Jo. 1. 3 (k*D ovSei/), 3. 27 B, R. 3. 10 O.T. (ov...oi'5e eh, cp. §75, 
6; ibid. 12 O.T. ovk eo-nv ews evos, Buttm. p. 106, 1). 

3. The generalizing relatives ocmo-ovv, oo-ris drjirore etc. do not 
appear either as relatives or (with a verb to be supplied) as indefinite 
pronouns ('someone or other'); ofy Syjitotovv with v.l. $ 8rj7rore (relat.) 
is found in an interpolated passage ' Jo.' 5. 4." In A. 19. 26 after 
UavXos D adds tis rore, which should be corrected to rh irore = Lat. 
nescio quis ; so Clem. Horn. v. 27 rh ttote 'lovSacos 'some Jew or 
other/ tl 7roTe ' something ' (modern Greek uses riirore for 'some- 
thing ' or ' nothing ') xi. 28, xvii. 8 (rh for octtis, § 50, 5 2 ; cp. the 
adverb Situs irore ' somehow ' Clem. Horn. ii. 22, where lo-ri is to be 
supplied) : Attic uses oo-tls lo-riv or av y, Eurip. Bacch. 247, 
Demosth. iv. 27, the latter being used by St. Paul in G. 5. 10. 

4. On the derived correlatives olos, 00-os, toiovtos, too-ovtos etc. 
(§ 12, 4) the following points may be noticed. In exclamations 
(direct or indirect ; originally indirect, ' see how/ ' I marvel how ? ) 

1 On 1 C. 15. 51 ov iravres, as also on ov iravrcos, ttolvtcos ov, see § 75, 7. 

2 So also tlvog-ovv (according to the MS. p) for Tjarcvocrovv Clem. Horn. x. 20.* 

2*v. App. p. 331. «v. App. p. 318. 

§51.4-6.] PRONOMINAL WORDS. 1 79 

the forms ohs, ocros, ^At/cos should strictly be used, as in classical 
Greek, because some definite thing before one is indicated (so^ that 
ottoios etc. are excluded) ; but here too we sometimes have the inter- 
rogative forms as in indirect questions : Mc. 15. 4 t'Se iroo-a k.t.X., 
Mt. 27. 13 (B* oo-a), A. 21. 20, 2 C. 7. 11 (direct), t'oVre tttjXlkois 
k.t.X. Gr. 6. 11, H. 7. 14; but ofos is correctly used in 1 Th. 1. 5, 
2 Tim. 3. 11 (in L. 9. 55 D is right with 7rotW), la cp. ttws, § 76, 3. — 
In correlative clauses we have toiovtovs ... ottoios A. 26. 29 (qualis- 
cunque) ; TocrovTcp . . . ocro) H. 1. 4; but as 60-01 = TrdvTes ot, it has 
frequently to be followed by ovtol, as in E. 8. 14; peculiar is tov 
avrov ... ohv Ph. 1. 30. — On 6 tolovtos see § 47, 9; it is weakened 
into a more indefinite term for ovros in 2 C. 12. 2, 3, 5, 1 C. 5. 5, 

2 C. 2. 6 f. E. 9. 6 cwx ohv 8e on iKTreTTTOjKev is to be explained 

(according to Lob. Phryn. 372, Buttm. 319) as for ov Srjirov eKueiTT., 
cp. ovx on, § 81. — With H. 10. 37 O.T. ert fUKpbv 60-ov 60-ov (cp. LXX. 
Is. 26. 20) and L. 5. 3 D liravayayeiv b'orov ocrov (for oXtyov of the 
other mss.) i.e. a trifle, compare Aristoph. Vesp. 213. 

5. ' Each ' 5fcao-Tos (without the art. § 47, 9; ibid, for the distinction 
between it and iras; for ns 'each' supra 1) is intensified as eh 
ei<ao-Tos; it is added to a plural subject without affecting the con- 
struction (class.), Winer § 58, 4 ; Jo. 16. 32 etc. In addition to 
r <zKao-Tos there has been developed out of the distributive Kara (or dvd, 
§ 45, 3) the peculiar and grossly incorrect Ka& (dvd) efc, since i<a9' 
Iva €Kao-rov became stereotyped as KaOkva e/c., and this called forth 
a corresponding nominative ; so in modern Greek i each ' is KaOevas. 
Still there are not many instances as yet in the N.T. of this vulgarism, 
and the amalgamation of the two words into one has not yet been 
carried out: Mc. 14. 19 ds i<ard (/ca6>' AD al.) eh (C e?s eVao-ros), 
'Jo.' 8. 9 e?§ kclO' eh, E. 12. 5 rb (v.l. o) 8e Ka& eh severally, with 
reference to each individual, Ap. 21. 21 ava eh eKacrrcs. (Herm. Sim. 
ix. 3. 4, 6. 3 Kara eva = e/caa-Tov, forming the whole object.) 

6. "Erepos and dXXos. "Ere/oo? is beside d^orepoL the single surviv- 
ing dual pronominal word, §13,5; in modern Greek it likewise has 
disappeared, and even in the N.T. instances of its use cannot be 
quoted from all writers (never in Mc. [16. 12 is spurious], the 
Apocalypse, or Peter, never in John except in 19. 37, used prin- 
cipally by Lc. and to some extent by Mt. and Paul). Moreover, the 
way in which it is employed is no longer always correct : Mt. 16. 14 
ol fxev...dXXoi Se...eTepot $e (in the last two clauses Mc. 8. 28, 
L. 9. 19 have dXXot twice; erepoc could have stood correctly in the 
second clause = a second section), L. 8. 6 ff. /cat 'erepov three times (D 
dXXo, as in Mt. 13. 5 ff., Mc. 4. 5 ff.), 9. 59, 61, 1 C. 12. 9 f. (w fxev 
. . . dXXo) Se ... Irepo) — then four times dXXw 8e ... eTepw . . . dXXw Se), 
H. 11. 36. The use at the close of enumerations of /cat erepovs ttoX- 
Xovs Mt. 15. 30 (cp. L. 3. 18, E. 8. 39, 13. 4, 1 Tim. 1. 10) may be 
paralleled from Attic writers (Dem. 18. 208, 219, 19. 297): others, 
different from those named (the latter being conceived of as a unit) ; 

1 Also passages like A. 9. 16 vTro8ei^o> avrcp, 'oaa Set iraBelv avrov may be so 
taken, but the explanation of o<ra = Tr&VTa a is more natural (so 14. 27 etc.). 

a v. App. p. 318. 

iSo PRONOMINAL WORDS. [§ 51. 6. § 52. 

but no Attic author ever said Tats Irkpais iroXecnv, 'the remaining 
cities ' L. 4. 3, for 6 erepos is restricted to a definite division into two 
parts; hence Mt. 10. 23 is also incorrect, kv rrj iroXec ravrj) ... ets ttjv 
krkpav (KB ; aXXrjv CE rell., where the article is still more unusual : 
no doubt 'the next city' is what is meant 1 ); similarly L. 19. 20 
6 erepos i.e. the third (but A al. om. 6). Ph. 2. 4 rot t<Sv (add. D*FG) 
krkpoiv opposed to rot eainw is correct, cp. 1 C. 10. 24 al. — In the 
case of aXXos the most striking encroachment on the province of 
Zrepos is that 6 aXXos is written where there is only a division into 
two parts (isolated exx. in Att. : Eur. I. T. 962 f. Oarepov - to 8' 
aXXo ; Plat. Leg. 629 D, but probably corrupt): Mt. 5. 39 (L. 6. 29) 
(TTpkxpov aww koX rrjv aXXrjv (o-iayova), 12. 13, Jo. 18. 16, 19. 32, 
20. 3 f. etc.; with aXXos ecrrh 6 p,apTvpQ>v Jo. 5. 32 (opposed to eyw) 
we may compare Aesch. Suppl. 230 f. /cd/cet cufcd£a ... Zevs aXXos, and 
Mt. 25. 16 etc. aAAa irevrt rdXavra finds complete illustration in 
classical authors (Plato Leg. v. 745 A aXXo too-ovtov //-epos)." — Still 
more pleonastic is the use of erepoi (like aXXot in class. Greek, 
Kiihner-Gerth ii. 3 275, note 1) in L. 23. 32 /cat erepoi Svo KaKovpyot 
= two others besides Him, malefactors ; on the other hand, aAAos is 
absent in many places where we insert 'other' : A. 5. 29 Herpos kol 
oi (sc. aXXot) (xttoo-toXoi ; cp. 2. 14 II. crvv rots (SC. Xoittols) 4VSe/<a; 
in class. Gk. "EKropt kol Tpueo-o-t Horn. II. 17. 291. — - v AAAot aAAo (re) 
are united with the meaning 'one one thing — one another' (class.) in 
A. 19. 32. 21. 34 . 2 



The system of three voices of the verb — active (transitive), pas- 
sive (intransitive), and middle (i.e. transitive with reference to the 
subject) — remains on the whole the same in the N.T. as in the 
classical language. In the former, as in the latter, it frequently 
happens in the case of individual verbs that by a certain arbitrariness 
•of the language this or that voice becomes the established and recog- 
nized form for a particular meaning, to the exclusion of another 
voice, which might perhaps appear more appropriate to this meaning. 
It is therefore a difficult matter to arrive at any general conception 
for each of the voices, which when applied to particular cases is not 
bound at once to become subject to limitation or even contradiction. 
The active does not in all cases denote an action, but may equally 
well denote a state, or even being affected in some way or other — ideas 
which would be more appropriately expressed by the passive. Xat/ow 

1 The fuller form of expression in D al. has an additional clause : ichv 4v ry 
iripq, (oiXKri D) bubuwdLv v/jlcIs, (pevyere eh rr\v dWrjv (once more into the next). 
Neither of these readings, however, is original. The true text is that attested 
by Tertullian and others : brav 8e SubKUGLV v/xas, (pevyere iic 7r6Xews ets woXiv. 

2 Hermas almost always uses erepos for 'other,' even with the article as in 
Vis. iii. 7. I, 3 rots Be erepovs {\L6 ovs), Sim. viii. 1. 7-18 ; but aXXos /cat aXXos for 
'differing in each instance,' or 'in each individual,' Sim. ix. 1. 4, 10 (cp. 
Xenoph. Cyrop. iv. 1. 15 'always fresh'). «v. App. p. 318. 

§ 52. § 53- 1J VOICES OF THE VERB. 181 

means 'I rejoice/ but the opposite is Xvwovpat; accordingly in the 
aorist e^apr/v we actually have the passive form as in iXv7rrj07]v. In 
Oavfidfa, 'I am astonished' (wonder), the active voice is at most only 
correct with the meaning *to see with astonishment'; it has a middle 
future Oav^da-ofiaL, cp. #ea>/xcu Oedo-ofiai ; but the verb of similar 
meaning dyapcu has rjydrrOrjv and accordingly (as a verb expressing 
emotion) is passive, and the later language creates the corresponding 
forms OavfxdfafjLat depon., and aor. WavpdcrOrjv, § 20, 1. We may 
therefore assert that the active voice is quite unlimited in the mean- 
ings which may be attached to it, except where a passive (or middle) 
voice exists beside it, as in ttj7tto> - twto/zou. It must further be 
added that certain verbal forms unite an active formation with a 
passive (intransitive) meaning, particularly the 1st and 2nd aorists pas- 
sive in -Oyjv, -7]v, and frequently perfects in -a, -/ca (diroXcoXa, eo-r^Ka). 
On the other hand, the middle can be only imperfectly differentiated 
from the passive, with which in the forms of the tenses, with the 
exception of aorist and future, it entirely coincides. We may adhere 
to the rule of giving the name of middle only to those forms which 
share the transitive meaning of the active, as corrafxai io-rrjo-dfirjv 
beside 'ixn-qpa ecrr^o-a ; but if no active form exists, or if the meaning 
of the active form does not correspond to that of the passive or 
middle, then it is difficult to distinguish between the two last- 
mentioned voices. 'A-n-oKpLvofjiaL, ' answer,' is a deponent verb when 
it has this meaning ; since it is transitive, in classical Greek it takes 
the forms ob-eK/oii/a/x^i/, diro Kp ivov pat ; the later language, however, 
regardless of the meaning which elsewhere attaches to aorists in 
-drjv, regularly uses aTreKptf-qv, aTroKpiOiqcropai. OavpidcropLai from 
Oavpidfa should be called middle, since it is transitive, and the 
classical language possesses the additional form OavfiacrOijo-ofxat with 
a passive meaning; the same applies to re£o/mt from tlkto) and many 
other such futures ; but aTroOavovfiai from a7ro0vyo-Kw, Ope^ofiat from 
rpexu (Spafiovfjiac from eSpapiov), being intransitive, and having no 
additional future forms, must certainly be classed as passives in the 
same category with the later OavpiacrOrjo-opaL, 1 if the conception of 
the passive is extended, as it must be, so that it becomes equivalent 
to intransitive. It is, in fact, quite a rare occurrence for the 
language to draw a distinction between intransitive and passive, such 
as in Attic is drawn between evrrjv 'placed myself and io-rdOrjv 
'was placed/ or between arrjo-opLai 'shall place myself and 
orraOrjo-opLaL 'shall be placed.' In the language of poetry and in the 
later language this distinction hardly exists at all : there io-rddrjv is 
equivalent to eo-rrjv and <fiadv6r)v to £cf)dvr]v (while in Attic e^dvrjv 
means ' appeared,' tydvOrjv ' was informed against ' [juridical term]). 


1. Some active verbs, which were originally transitive, subse- 
quently developed an additional intransitive (or reflexive) meaning. 

1 'JZdavfjtAadrjv Ap. 13. 3, davfiaad-rjcrovraL 17. 8 have ceased to be used transi- 

1 82 ACTIVE VOICE. [§ 53. 1. 

"A-yw 'lead,' besides the stereotyped phrase dye ( = class.), is also 
used intransitively in ayw/xei/ 'let us go' Mt. 26. 46 etc.; and still 
more frequently in composition : thus we have wayw, a vulgar word for 
'to go,' esp. common in the forms v-n-aye, -€Te, but also found in other 
forms of the present stem, e.g. virdyei Jo. 3. 8 (the word is most 
frequent in this writer), but never in other tenses, cp. § 24 (the word 
is previously used in classical Greek, virdyeO' vfieis rrjs 68ov Aristoph. 
Ran. 174, virdyoipa Tap av Av. 1017, but with a more clearly denned 
meaning); irapdyziv ' to pass by' 1 , Mt. 20. 30, Mc. 15. 21 etc. (cp. 
Polyb. v. 18, 4) : met. 'to disappear' 1 C. 7. 31, for which 1 Jo. 2. 
8, 17 uses Trapdyerai; Trepidyecv Mt. 4. 23, A. 13. II etc. 'to go 
about,' with accus. of the district traversed, cp. § 34, 1 (not so in 
class. Greek 2 ). a Also wpodyeiv besides the meaning 'to bring before' 
acquires that of ' to go before anyone (nva) ' *(in class. Greek we 
have Plat. Phaed. 90 A orov irpodyovros eytb i<p€cr7r6fi7]v, but this is 
different from the N.T. use; the common phrase is it poyjyeicrO 'at tlvi, 
which like rjyzio-Oai is never so used in the N.T.), Mt. 2. 9 and 
passim ; but dvdyecrOac dvr)yfiv\v. d — BdXXetv 'to rush' A. 27. 14 (the 
use can hardly be paralleled, but cp. piirreiv) ; kirifi. ' to rush upon ' 
(as already in class. Greek) Mc. 4. 37 ; ibid. 14. 72 the phrase 
iTri/SaKojv eKXaiev is obscure (it is explained by dpgdfxevos ; D has 
rjp^aro k\<zi€lv ; cp. A. 11. 4 dp^dfievos k^erWero). — Bpe'xciv trans, 
means ' to water ' ; intrans. and impers. (§ 30, 4) it stands for class. 
vetv (which nowhere appears) as in modern Greek; we also have 
e/^pege irvp kcu Otiov L. 17. 29, after Gen. 19. 24, where Kvpios is 
inserted as the subject. — "TUxav 'to be in such and such circum- 
stances' as in class. Greek; similarly v-n-epexeiv 'to excel' (also 
trans. ' to surpass ' Ph. 4. 7) : dirkytw ' to be distant ' (with accus. of 
the distance) ; Iveyziv nvi 'to have designs upon someone/ 'to hate/ 
' persecute/ Mc. 6. 19, L. 11. 53/ htkyziv ' to observe anything ' L. 14. 7 
etc. (class.), also 'to stay/ 'tarry' A. 19. 22 (ditto); Trpoo-exetv 'to take 
heed,' ' to listen to anyone ' (never with the original supplement rbv 
vovv, which is often inserted in Attic) : also with and without eavrco 
= caver e (Mt. 6. 1, L. 17. 2 etc.). 3 — 'AvaKcLfj/irmv 'to turn round,' 
'come back' as in Attic. — KXtvav 'to decline' of the day L. 9. 12, 
24. 29 (similarly in Polyb.); €kk\iv€lv 'to turn aside' R. 16. 17 etc. 
(class.). — 'Pfrirmv : diropixpavTas is intrans. in A. 27. 43 (so /otVr. in 
poetry and late writers). — 2Tp€<J>€iv : the simple verb is intrans. in 
A. 7. 42 ? as is often the case with its compounds with €7rt-, airo-, 
dva-, -u7ro-, A. 3. 19 etc., not without classical precedent; vTcovrpk- 
fao-Oat is never found (in class. Greek it is used as well as -eiv) ; 

1 The explanation that it means discedere arises from Mt. 9. 27 irapayovri 
ZkuOzv^ where however e/c. should be removed according to the Lewis Syriac, as 
it should he also in 9. 9 with K*L Chrys. 

2 Demosth. 42. 5 irepiayayuv (to lead about) rr\v eax^ridv ; also in Cebes Tab. 
6 irepiayovra.1 is the reading now adopted. 

3 nepiex"*' ' to contain ' (of a written document) is in the first instance transi- 
tive : irepiexovvav rdde A. 15. 23 D : ireptex^ {^X 0V<Tav NB) top ttjttov tovtov 23. 25 ; 
but we also have the phrases ir. rbv rpbirov tovtov or ovtws, worded in this way 
(Joseph.), and in 1 P. 2. 6 7repte%et ev (rg) ypacpy (fy ypa<prj C), 'stands written.' 

abcde Vt App # p. 318. 

§53-1-3.] ACTIVE VOICE. ^3 

eTTiarTpefaiv ' to turn round,' 'be converted' (for which we have 
-eorrpdcjyrjTe in 1 P. 2. 25, but C reads 4\pare), so esp. frequent in this 
sense in Polybius : pass, 'to turn oneself round,' look round' (Att.); 
avao-rp. ' to turn round,' often used transitively as well (it appears 
intransitively in Attic as a military expression) : pass. ' to live,' 
'sojourn' (Att.); airouTp. is intr. in A. 3. 26 (for which Att. generally 
has the pass.), more often trans.; pass, with nvd ' to turn away from,' 
'avoid' (Att.). — Cp. eyeiptiv, KaOl&iv in § 24; and further, technical 
expressions like alpetv (sc. tyjv vavv diro rrjs yys) 'to set sail' A. 27. 13. 

2. The intransitive employment of Sveiv and <|>v€iv is based upon 
an old variation in the usage of these words, see § 24 ; that of 
avgdv€iv upon the usage of the Hellenistic language, ibid., as also 
that of Karairavuv H. 4. 10 (see LXX. Ex. 31. 18 etc.; cp. an un- 
known comedian in Diod. Sic. 12. 14 evyjuepcov Kardiravo-ov). Beside 
the deponent evay/eXi^o-ecu (Att.) there is also found the form -£eiv in 
Ap. 10. 7, 14. 6 (elsewhere the Ap. also uses -geordou), as occasionally 
in the LXX., 1 Sam. 31. 9 (Dio Cass. 61. 13). The new words 
Qpiapfievew and na0Tyr€TW in other writers are intrans. (to celebrate a 
triumph, to be a disciple — corresponding to the ordinary meaning 
of the termination -evecv), in the N.T. they are in (nearly) all cases 
transitive, to lead in triumph, to make disciples, see § 34, 1. — 
'Avcu|>dvavT€s rrjv Kv-n-pov A. 21. 3 (there is a wrong reading 4vres) 
means ' made it visible to ourselves,' viz. by approaching it ; it must 
have been a nautical expression, as dnroKpyTrreiv (Lat. absconclere) is 
used to express the opposite meaning. a 

3. Active for middle. — If emphasis is laid on the reference to the 
subject, then the middle is never employed, but the active with a 
reflexive pronoun takes its place : dirkKTeivev kavrov (on the other 
hand aTrrjygaro is used, because dirdyyziv Ttvd, i.e. someone else, is 
unusual, the reflexive action being in this instance far the commoner 
of the two). So we say £ he killed himself [todtete sich selbst]. 
Elsewhere the reflexive reference which is suggested by the context 
remains unexpressed, as in the case of (Kara-)8ovXovv (which Attic 
also uses beside -ovaOai): 2 C. 11. 20 d ns vpids KaraSovXoi, cp. 
Gr. 2. 4 (so too dva$dvavT€s, supra 2). Inversely, the reflexive may 
be expressed twice over, by the middle and by a pronoun ; Stefiepi- 
u-avro eairrots Jo. 19. 24 O.T., cp. A. 7. 21 (as in Attic). With the 
following verbs the use of the active instead of the middle is 
contrary to Attic usage : (ireipdfav for irzipdo-Qai, see § 24) ; evpto-Kciv 
' to obtain ' the usual form, except in H. 9. 12 (Attic uses the middle, 
poets have the act. as well); KaOrjij/ev rfjs x €i P° s avrov A. 28. 3 
instead of KaOrjiparo which C reads (but t6£ov Ka6d\fcu is also cited 
by Pollux i. 164); Xvcrov to vTroB-qixa rcov ttoSiov crov A. 7. 33 O.T. 
(LXX. Xvcrai). For Trape'xetv See § 55, 1. IIousiv is used (with fjiovrjv 

Jo. 14. 23 only in AEGH al.) (with 6S6v Mc. 2. 23, BGH have 
6So7tol€lv), with rrjv kK§LKT)(riv L. 18. 7 f., to ZXeos /z€t' avrov a Hebraic 
phrase (G-en. 24. 12) L. 10. 37, 1. 72, with eveS/oav A. 25. 3 1 Koirerov 
8. 2 (-o-avTO EHP), KpLcrcv Jo. 5. 27, Jude 15, -n-oXefAov Ap. 11. 7 etc., 
<rvfx/3ovXtov Mc. 3. 6 (BL eStSovv), 15. I (v.l. eroifjido-avres), (with 
<rvv(x)fjLocrcav A. 23. 13 only in HP), with arvcrrpo^jv ibid. 12; in all 
a v. App. p. 318. 

1 84 A CTIVE AND PASSIVE VOICES. [§ 53. 3. § 54. 1-3. 

which cases the active is incorrect because the iroiovvres are at the 
same time the very persons who carry out the action which is 
expressed by the verbal substantive. We also have elsewhere in 
the N.T. iroieivOai Xoyov, dva/3oXr]v, iropeiav, anrovSyjv etc. Sirdo-ao-Gai 
rrjv fxayaipav is correctly written in Ma 14. 47, A. 16. 27, but in 
Mt. 26. 51 we have airio-n-ao-ev r. /x. avrov, in which case Attic Greek 
must certainly have omitted the avrov and expressed the reflexive 
force by means of the middle ; similarly in 26. 65 Siepprjgev rd Ifidria 
avrov, but in this case the use of the active is also classical (Aesch. 
Pers. 199 weirXovs prjyvvcriv, cp. 1030). 


1. Even deponent verbs with a transitive meaning can (as in 
Attic) have a passive, the forms of which are for the most part 
identical with those of the deponent. Aoyt^erat 'is reckoned' 
R. 4. 4 f.; evayyeXi^erai -ovrai Mt. 11. 5, L. 7. 22, 16. 16 (cp. how- 
ever § 53, 2); fiidterai Mt. 11. 12 (L. 16. 16 is different); Jpyafo/xiv?/ 
Herm. Sim. v. 3. 8 ; in the present tense the instances of this use in class, 
writers are not numerous (Hdt. 3. 95 Xoyi^opevov). TaWo A. 5. 16 D: 
laTOLi perf. Mc. 5. 29. But the passive sense is frequent in the case 
of the aorist, where the passive and deponent forms are for the most 
part distinguishable : eXoyicrOrjv, idOrjv, eyapicrOriv, ippvardrjv, e/uivrjcrOrjv 
(A. 10. 31, Ap. 16. 19; also lxx., not class.) etc. (fut. Xoyio-Or^ 
R. 2. 26, see however § 33, 3, la$rj<r. Mt. 8. 8, dirapvrjdrjo: [§ 20, 1] 
L. 12. 9). 

2. While in Attic Greek the passives of some ordinary verbs are 
regularly represented by the actives of other verbs, — e.g. diroKreiveiv 

takes for passive o.iroOvrjo-Keiv, ev (kcckw?) iroielv pass, ev (Kai<(os) 
Trdo-yeiv, ev (kock.) Xeyeiv pass, ev (/<a/c.) aKovecv, and vtto is used with 
these verbs as the connecting particle as it is elsewhere with true 
passives — there are but few traces of this usage in the N.T. {eKirtirreiv 
A. 27. 17, 26, 29 = ii</3dXXeo-0 at, but does not take vtto : on the other 
hand eK^dXXeo-.Oai is used in Mt. 8. 1 2 etc., though this form is also 
found in Attic; irdo-x^v vtto Mt. 17. 12, where e-rrol-qo-av has pre- 
ceded, Mc. 5. 26, 1 Th. 2. 14); still the instances of the contrary 
usage are also not numerous : aTroKravOyjv at Mc. 9.31 etc. The 
passive of iroielv, with the exception of H. 12. 27 is entirely un- 

3. As in Attic, a passive verb may have a person for its subject 
even in a case where in the active this person is expressed by the 
genitive or dative; the accusative of the thing remains the same 
with the passive as with the active verb. The N.T. instances cannot 
indeed be directly illustrated from the classical language, but they 
are perfectly analogous to the classical instances. They are SiaKovti- 
6fjvcu Mc. 10. 45 (ptaKOvelv rivt); eYKaXeurGai to be accused (eyKaXeiv 
nvi) A. 19. 40 etc.; €vap€<rT€icr0cu (act. with nvi) H. 13. 16 (Diod. Sic); 

KaTe-yvftXTfiivos Gr. 2. II (act. nvos), SO Diod. Sic.j KaTTryopeurOcu (act. 
twos) with ace. of the thing Mt. 27. 12, A. 22. 30, 25. 16 ; jxapTvpeio-Gcu 
(act. tlvi) to have a (good) testimonial (late writers) A. 6. 3 etc., 
1 Tim. 5. 10, H. 7. 8 etc. (but in 3 Jo. 12 ArjjjLrjrpLO) fxep.aprvprjrai) ; 

§ 54- 3-5. § 5S 1.] PASSIVE AND MIDDLE VOICES. 185 

mcrT€veo-0aC n 'to have something entrusted to one' (irio-Tevtiv tivi n) 
E. 3. 2 etc. (Polyb.): also (without an object) 'to find credit/ 

1 Tim. 3. 16 iirto-revOr] (X/hcttos) ev koct/xo) (act. tlvl or ets riva), cp. 

2 Th. 1. 10 (so previously in Attic); xp^^t* " 6 * 1 ' to receive in- 
structions 7 (from God; act. tivi) Mt. 2. 12 etc.: only in L. 2. 26 do 
we have fjv avrw Kexp^^o-Tio-^kvov (D KexpiwcLTLo-fxevos rjv). — Quite 
distinct from this is the use of the passive with a thing for its sub- 
ject : 2 C. 1. 11 tva to xa/oicr/xa evx^P^T7]6fj (evxapicrTeiv tl Herm. 
Sim. vii. 5; in the N.T. the act. takes ivi, wept etc.), and its use 
where an infinitive or a on clause may be regarded as the subject, 
kiriTpkweTai aot ... Xeyetv A. 26. 1, 1 C. 14. 34, as also the impersonal 
passive, § 30, 4. 

4. The passives of 6pav, 7t*yvwcrK€iv, cvptc-Keiv have a certain inde- 
pendent position as compared with their actives, since they assume 
a purely intransitive meaning, and are followed by the dative of the 
person concerned, instead of making use of vtto, see § 37, 4. A 
frequent instance is d<|>6i)vat tlvl (an old use), ajoparere, supervenire, 
with the new present oVtcivo/xcu A. 1. 3 (§ 24). Tv<ao-Qr\vai ' to become 
known' A. 9. 24 etc., cp. yiyvdxrKeo-6al tivi 'to be known, 7 in Eur. 
Cycl. 567, Xenoph. Cyr. vii. 1. 44; but 'to be recognized' is expressed 
by the pass, with vtto in 1*0. 8. 3. Evpe6i]vcu in E. 10. 20 O.T. (v.l. 
with ev) is used along with efx^avrj yevevOai (on 2 P. 3. 14, see § 37, 5). 
©eaOfjvcu is used like o<£#. in Mt. 6. 1, 23. 5; <j)aiv€<r0cu' tlvl dates from 
the earliest stage of the language. 

5. The passive must occasionally be rendered by 'to let oneself 
be etc. 'AdiKeio-Oe 1 C. 6, 7 'let yourselves be wronged 7 (in the 
sense of allowing it to take place), so in the same verse airoo-Ttptio-Oe. 
Ba-n-Tigeo-OaL 'to let oneself be baptized 7 (aor. ifia7TTicr6r)v, but see 
§ 55, 2). Cp. ayi'L^eo-Oai A. 21. 24, 26, airoypd^eo-Qai L. 2. I, yajuii- 
tjeo-Oai (§ 24), SoypLOLTLfro-OaL ' to let precepts be made for one ' Col. 
2. 20, 7repLT€fjiveor0aL passim. On the other hand, ' to let 7 in the sense 
of occasioning some result is expressed by the middle voice, § 55, 2. 


1. As the active is used in place of the middle, so the middle often 
stands for the active which would naturally be expected. 'Ap-weo-Gai 
'to assist ' = the Attic dfivveiv in A. 7. 24 (the word occurs here 
only). For cwmXeio-ecu see § 24. 'ATT€K8ucrd|j.evos Tas dpxds ^ s found 
in Col. 2. 15, whereas in Attic diro^va-aordai is 'to undress oneself 
*Hp{«><rdfj/r]v v[Aas avSpi 2 C. 11. 2 'betrothed' is for r/p/xocra (the word 
here only). ('Evep-yeio-eai is wrongly quoted in this connection : in 
the following passages E. 7. 5, 2 C. 1. 6, 4. 12, G-. 5. 6, E. 3. 20, 
Col. 1. 29, 1 Th. 2. 13, 2 Th. 2. 7, Ja. 5. 16 it is everywhere 
intransitive, and never applied to God, of whom the active is used ; 
the fact that the active appears in Mt. 14. 2, Mc. 6. 14 w T ith Swa^eis 
as subject, causes ivepytiv to appear equivalent to ivepyeio-Oai)" 
(The middle €K\eyeo-0cu is always found, meaning 'to choose out 
for oneself/ and it is only in A. 6. 5, 15. 22, 25 that it is not 

a v. App. p. 318. 

1 86 MIDDLE VOICE. [§55-1-2. 

absolutely necessary mentally to supply 'for oneself). ('E7rt- 
SeLKvvvOaL A. 9. 39 [elsewhere N.T. has the act.] may mean ' to 
display on their own persons. 1 ) KaTaXap.pdv€o-0ai 'to perceive 5 A. 4. 13 
etc. (Att. -eti/, but Dionys. Hal. also has the middle)." IIapaTT]pet<reai 
L. 14. 1 al. (used as well as -rypetv ; the simple verb only takes the 
active form). nX^povo-Bai E. 1. 23 'to fill' is equivalent to the act. 
in 4. 10. npopXeirecrOai H. 11. 40 is modelled on irpoopacrOai (fiXkirziv 
for opdv §21-); irepifiXiireo-Qai is the invariable forin of the verb 
(Polyb.; Attic uses the act.). Ti0€<r0ai (ev (frvXaKy and similar 
phrases, 'to put in prison' A. 4. 3 etc. are in accordance with 
classical usage, Karadyo-ofievos els rb oiKTjjjLa Demosth. 56, 4) ; but 
the middle is also used with the meaning ' to appoint as ' or ' to/ 
diroo-ToXovs 1 C. 12. 28, ets opyyv 1 Th. 5. 9 = Att. iroirjaai, Kara- 
<TTrjcrai, Ionic Odvai (H. 1. 2 ov WrjKev KXypovofiov). — SvykciXciv and 
-o-Oac ('to call to oneself) are everywhere correctly distinguished, 
if o-vy KaXdrat is read instead of o-vyKaXei with DF in L. 15. 6 and 
with ADEG- al. in verse 9. — Between alT€iv and alrdo-Qai old gram- 
marians draw the distinction, that a man who asks for something 
to be given him, intending to give it back again, atVetrat ; but 
alreio-Oat is applied generally to requests in business transactions, 
and this is its regular use in the N.T. Mt. 27. 20, 58, Mc. 15 (6), 8, 
43, 1 L. 23. 23, 25, 52, A. 3. 14, 9. 2, 12. 20, 13. 28, 25. 3, 15 ; the 
active is the usual form for requests from God, but the middle is 
used in 6 A. 7. 46,2 and there is an arbitrary interchange of mid. and 
act. in Ja. 4. 2 f., 1 Jo. 5. 14 f. etc.; the request of a beggar, a son 
etc. is naturally alretv, A. 3. 2, Mt. 7. 9 f. (cp. A. 16. 29, 1 C. 1. 22). 
'AiraiTeLV, wapaiTeicrdai are the Attic forms ; e^yrrjo-aro L. 22. 31 
(Attic uses both -dv and -do-Oat). — IXapexof^vos o-eavrbv tvttov Tit. 2. 7 
is contrary to classical usage (Trapeyu>v)°hui Col. 4. 1 tyjv lo-oryra rots 
8ov\ols irapex^o-Oe is not (C reads -ere), nor is Trapegy L. 7. 4, but the 
active is certainly unclassical in irapeixov <$>iXav 9 pair lav A. 28. 2, 
epyao-iav 16. 16 (-ero C; in 19. 24 A*DE read -x^, -x* T0 is the usual 
reading : the passage appears to be corrupt), although Homer uses 
cfuXoTyra irapao-xdv. — On the whole the conclusion arrived at must 
be that the New Testament writers were perfectly capable of pre- 
serving the distinction between the active and middle. 

2. The middle must occasionally be rendered by 'to let oneself,' 
cp. § 54, 5 for the pass., in the sense of occasioning some result, not 
of allowing something to take place. Ketpao-Oai, ^vpao-Oai 1 C. 11. 6; 
6<peXov Kal aTroKoipovrai Gr. 5. 12 'have themselves castrated,' as in 
Deut. 23. 1, whereas TrepLTepiveo-Qai is treated as a passive (let in the 
sense of allow). 'JLfiairTLO-d/jLrjV in A. 22. 16 /3a7TT«rai kol diroXovcrai 
(1 C. 6. 11 a-n-eXovcrao-Oe) may be explained in the sense of ' occa- 

1 In Mc. 6. 22 atr^ffov (K -cat), 23 cuVV??s> 24 alrrjcrojfiaL, 25 rjrfoaTO (D el-rev), 
there is a nice distinction, since the daughter of Herodias^ after the king's 
declaration, stands in a kind of business relation towards him. Cp. Mt. 20. 
20, 22, Mc. 10. 35, 38. 

2 A. 13. 21 rJT-fio-avTO (3ao-i\ea, Kal ZdwKev avro?s 6 debs k.t.X. probably does not 
come under this head. Cp. 1 Sam. 8. 5. a b c v. App. p. 319. 

§55-2. §56.1-3.] THE TENSES. PRESENT TENSE. 187 

sioning'; but in 1 C. 10. 2 -to-avro of BKLP appears to be wrong 
and -LcrOrjo-av to be the only right reading, whereas in L. 11. 38 
iftaTTTLo-'Or] in the quite different sense of ' washed his hands' is wrong 
(min. 700 correctly efiaTTTio-aTo). 


1. It was shown in a previous discussion in § 14, 1 that every 
tense has generally speaking a double function to perform, at least 
in the indicative : it expresses at once an action (continuance, 
completion, continuance in completion), and a time-relation (present, 
past, future), and the latter absolutely, i.e. with reference to the 
stand-point of the speaker or narrator, not relatively, i.e. with refer- 
ence to something else which occurs in the speech or narrative. 
In the case of the future, however, the function of defining action 
has disappeared from the Greek of the N.T., and the moods of this 
tense (including the infinitive and participle) were originally formed 
to denote a relative time-relation (with reference to the principal 
action of the sentence), and only in so far as they were necessary 
for this purpose.: hence it happens that a future conjunctive 1 and 
imperative never existed. The moods, with the exception just 
mentioned, are not used to express the time-relation but only the 
character of the action. 

2. The present denotes therefore an action (1) as viewed in its 
duration (its progress), (2) as taking place in present time. In the 
latter case the present may be regarded as a point of time, with the 
addition of the time immediately preceding and succeeding it, as in 
ypd<f>(D <I am writing (now),' or again the time included on either 
side of the present moment may be extended more and more, until 
it finally embraces all time, as in 6 Oebs eo-nv. Again, the idea of 
repetition may be added to, or substituted for, that of duration, so 
that what in itself is not continuous, is yet in virtue of its repetition 
viewed as in a certain measure continuous : this is more clearly seen 
in the case of past time : ejBaXzv ' he struck/ efiaXXev ' he struck 
repeatedly or continuously.' A distinction between the present 
strictly so called, denoting something which really takes place at 
the present moment, and the wider use, can only be made by 
means of a periphrasis, rvyx^voy &v (this however is not found in 
the N.T, § 73, 4). 

3. Since the opposite to duration is completion (expressed by the 
aorist), the present may be used with sufficient clearness to denote, 
as such, an action which has not yet reached completion, where we 
have recourse to the auxiliary verb ' will.' Jo. 10. 32 6\<x irolov avrwv 
epyov ifxe Xidd^re ( f will ye stone me 1 ') : G. 5. 4 oiVtves kv vojulo) 
SiKaiovo-Oe l would be justified': Jo. 13. 6 i/tVrets. The imperfect 
more often has this (conative) meaning. 

1 It is true that instances of it are found in the mss. of the N.T., e.g. 1 C. 
13. 3 Kavdr]<T(j3jxai CK. 

1 88 PRESENT TENSE. [§5<5.4-6. 

4. Since in the case of actions viewed as completed, there exists 
for obvious reasons no form to express present time (as it were a 
present of the aorist), the present tense must also in certain cases 
take over this function as well (aoristic present, Burton, N.T. Moods 
and Tenses p. 9). If Peter in A. 9. 34 says to Aeneas iarai ere 
'Irjo-ovs Xptcrros, the meaning is not, ' He is engaged in healing thee/ 
but ' He completes the cure at this moment, as I herewith announce 
to thee': under the same category comes irapayyeWu) o-ot act. A. in 
A. 16. 18 (the expulsion of a demon), where in a similar way an 
action is denoted from the stand-point of the actor and speaker as 
being completed in the present, which the narrator from his own 
point of view would have expressed by the aorist as completed in 
the past, 7raprjyyeiXev. 1 With this belongs dcr7rd(eTaL ' sends greet- 
ing': to which the corresponding term is always danrdo-aa-Qt 'greet/ 

5. The present also habitually takes an aoristic meaning, where 
an interchange of times takes place, and it is used in lively, realistic 
narrative as the historic present. This usage is frequent, as it is 
in classical authors, in the New Testament writers of narrative, 
except in Luke's writings, where we seldom meet with it. Jo. 1. 29 
ty] eiravpiov fiXkirei ... kol Aeyet...* 35 rrj iiravpiov irdXiv elcrrrjKei 
(pluperf. = impf. is retained) ... 36 ko! ... Aeyet ... ; 43 rfj kiravpiov 
rjOeXr)(T€V egeXQeiv (according to Chrys. egrjXOev) ... Kal evpto-Ket ; thus 
the tendency appears to be for the circumstances or what may gener- 
ally be described as incidentals to be denoted by past tenses, and the 
principal actions (which take place under the circumstances described 2 ) 
by the present, while the final results are again expressed by the 
aorist, because there realistic narrative would be unnatural: 39 rjXOav 
ovv kou euW ... Kal ... efxeivav. Even apart from narrative the present 
is used in a similar way: ibid. 15 'Iwdvrjs paprvpet irepl avrov Kal 
KtKpayev (Attic = Kpd^.i), a 

6. "H/<o>, as is well known, has a perfect meaning (L. 15. 27 etc.); 
(irdpeia-Lv ' are come hither 'A. 1 7. 6 is a present used for the perfect 
of another verb [Burton, p. 10], as dirk^u is used for direlX-q^a in 
Mt. 6. 2). Further &kovg> is ' I hear ' in the sense of ' I have heard ' 
(L. 9. 9, 1 C. 11. 18, 2 Th. 3. 1 1, as in classical Greek ; an equivalent 
for it would be Xeyerai, where the use of the present is no more 
remarkable than in aKoverai 1 C. 5. 1). 'ASckw in A. 25. 11 beside 
d^tov Oavdrov irkirpayd tl (and following ovSev rj8iKr)Ka in verse io) 3 
means 'I am guilty,' 'am a criminal' as in Attic (this use occurs 
here only ; in Mt. 20. 13 the word has the ordinary meaning of the 

1 Burton quotes in this connection (besides A. 26. 1 tTriTptireTai etc. ) a<pievTat 
(Tov at aixapTicu Mc. 2. 5, Mt. 9. 2 etc., and rightly, at least if this reading is to 
be trusted (cp. § 23, 7). 

2 Rodemeyer, Diss, inaug. Basel 1889 (Pras. histor. bei Herodot. u. Thukyd.) 
endeavours to show that the historic present expresses something which takes 
place at or directly after a point of time already indicated : this theory holds 
good up to a certain point. Mt. 2. 13 avaxupvjv&vTwv olvt&v Idov dyyeXos Kvpiov 
(paiverat (Win.; but there is a v.l. icpavr)) ; Herm. Vis. i. 1. 3 5ia/3a? rfkdov .. Kal 
ti$Q> t<x yovara. 

3 Thus it appears that the perfect remains where there is a reference to 
particular trespasses ; the present is only used of the general result. 

"v. App. p. 319. 

§56.6-9.] PRESENT TENSE. 1 89 

pres.); also 6 vikw in Ap. 2. 7 etc. may remind one of the Attic 
use of VLK& for 'lama conqueror/ while wpdo-o-ei in A. 26. 31 refers 
to Paul's whole manner of life and his Christianity in particular. 
Throughout these remarks we are concerned only with the special 
usage of individual verbs, and not with the general syntactical 
employment of the present. 

7. Presents such as those in L. 15. 29 roo-avra err) SovXevu <toi 
(cp. 13. 7 l8ov rpia err) dcf>' ov epxoficu, Jo. 8. 58 ci/u, 15. 27 i(rre, and 
many others) are by no means used for perfects : on the contrary, 
no other form was possible, because the continuance or the recur- 
rence of the action in the present had to be included in the 

8. Present for future. — The classical language is also acquainted 
with a (lively and imaginative) present for future in the case of 
prophecies (e.g. in an oracle in Herodot. vii. 140 f.), and this present 
— a sort of counterpart to the historic present — is very frequent in 
the predictions of the N.T. It is not attached to any definite verbs, 
and it is purely by accident that epxopcu appears with special fre- 
quency in this sense : Jo. 14. 3 edv Jto ifidcro) tottov vfiiv, irdXiv epxofJLat 
kol 7rapa\rjfjuf>o/jLai vpLcis ; a so esp. 6 epxojmevos ' He who is to come' (the 
Messiah) Mt. 11. 3, cp. 11. 14 ? HAtas 6 //,eAAwi/ ZpxccrOai, 17. 11 'HA.. 
epxtrai. But we find equally well: Mc. 9. 31 6 vlbs rov dvOpwirov 
TrapaSiSorat (^fieXXet 7rapa8i8oo~0aL Mt. 17. 22)..., kol diroKrevovo-iv 
cn;Toi/, 6 Mt. 27. 63 fJLtra rpeis r)p.epas eyetpofiai : Herm. Vis. ii. 2. 4 
a<£t€i/Tcu. The present is also used without any idea of prophecy, 
if the matter is mentioned as something that is certain to take place, 
so that /neXXei (epx^Oat) could have been used : e.g. in Jo. 4. 35 
6T6 T6Tpa/JLr)v6s IcrTt /<ou 6 6epi<TfJL0S epx^Tat, Mt. 24. 43 irota cfavXc/LKy 6 
KXeirT7]<s epxercu,, and repeatedly in eW epxofiat (-erat), see § 65, 1 ; 
in other cases eXevo-ofxat is necessary, Mt. 24. 5, Mc. 12. 9, 13. 6 etc. 
But verbs of going and coming when used in the present also have 
the meaning of being in course of going (or coming), in which case 
the arrival at the goal still lies in the future : Jo. 3. 8 iroOev epx^rai 
rj wov vTrayei, almost = is about to go, 8. 14 -iroQev rjXBov kol ttov vway<a 
... irodev € rj ttov vir., SO ttov virdyo) -ecs in Jo. 14. 4 f., 7rop€vopLaL 
ibid. 2, 12, A. 20. 22 : dva/Salvofjiev Mt. 20. 18, Jo. 20. 17 (but in Jo. 
7. 8 ovk dvaf3(XLv<t> els rrjv ioprrjv Tavrrjv the present is used for future). 

9. Present used to express relative time (cp. 1). — It is a well- 
known fact that when the speech of another person is directly 
repeated the tenses refer to the points of time of the speech itself, 
and that in the classical language the form of oratio obliqua is 
frequently assimilated in this respect to that of direct speech. In 
the N.T. the use of oratio obliqua is certainly not favoured, 
and that of oratio recta predominates ; but it is noteworthy that 
subordinate sentences after verbs of perception and belief are assi- 
milated to oratio recta, and the tenses therefore have a relative 
meaning. Thus Mt. 2. 22 aKovo-as on 'Apx*Xaos fiaviktvei : Jo. 6. 24 
eiSev 6 6'xAos on 'Irjcrovs ovk ecrriv €K€L. a This practice also appears 
in the classical language, but not as a general rule, whereas in the 

« h c d v. App. p. 319. 

190 PRESENT TENSE. [§ 56. 9. § 57. 1-3, 

N.T. the rule is so far established that the imperfect in such 
sentences must in most cases be rendered by the pluperfect, since 
it refers to an earlier time than that spoken of, § 57, 6. Still we 
have Jo. 16. 19 eyvio on rjQeXov (v.l. rjfxeWov) avrbv epwrccv, with 
which cp. the instances of pluperf. for the usual perf. in § 59, 6; 18. 
32 rjfJLeXkev after o-rjfjLOLLVoyv, cp. § 61, 2 (A. 22. 2 aKOvo-avres on wpoor- 

e^wvet, but the better reading is Trpoo-cjxoveL DEH). The aorist 
however may be used : Mc. 12. 12 eyvwo-av on efa-ev (Mt. 21. 45 has 
on Aeyet = eXeye). See also the Future, § 61, 2. 


1. The distinction between continuous and completed action is 
most sharply marked in the case of the imperfect and aorist indica- 
tive, and moreover this distinction is observed with the same 
accuracy in the N.T. as in classical Greek. 

2. Repetition, as such, is regarded as continuous action, and 
expressed by the imperfect (cp. § 56, 2), as also is action left 
uncompleted (Imperf. de conatu., cp. § 56, 3). Exx. : (a) A. 2. 45 rd 
KTrjfJLara eirlir pacrKov kcu Stepbept^ov avra irao-iv ; this frequently hap- 
pened, although it is not stated that it took place or was carried 
into effect in every case (aorist), cp. 4. 34, 18. 8, Mc. 12. 41 ; 
(b) A. 7. 26 crvvrjWao-o-ev avrovs els elprjvrjv, 'sought to reconcile/ 
26. 11 rjvdyt<a£ov /SXaj-^fieiv, where however the imperf. also 
expresses repetition (like e8t<oKov ibid.), L. 1. 59 eKaXow avrb 
Zaxaptai/ 'wished to call him Z.,' Mt. 3. 14 SieKtoXvev 'wished or 
tried to prevent Him' (A. 27. 41 eXvero 'began to be broken up'). 

3. The action is further regarded as continuous if the manner of 
it is vividly portrayed. H. 11. 17 Trio-ret irpoo-evrjvox^ 'Af3paap rbv 
TcraaK ..., kcu rbv fiovoyevrj Trpowk^epev k.t.A., a supplementary char- 
acterization of the peculiar feature of this instance.* A. 5. 26 ^yev 
avrovs ov |X€T& Pias, cp. 27 dyayovres 8e (conclusion of the act) avrovs 
ecrrrjcrav ; 41 eiropevovro yaipovres dirb 7rpoarco7rov tov crvveSplov (it was 
here unnecessary to denote the conclusion of the act); 15. 3 Safjpxovro 
... €i<8L7]yovfM€voi ty)v €7r ten pocj^Yjv Tuv e6viov, Kol kiToiovv (everywhere) 
\apav pLeydX-qv ... (conclusion given in 4 irapayevopevot 8e) ; 15. 41 is 
similar; on the other hand, we have in 16. 6 8ltjX0ov 8e rrjv Qpvyiav 
(where there is no description). See also 21. 3 eirXeopiev els IZvpiav, 
i<al KarrjXdo/uLev eh Tvpov, where (as in 18. 22, 21. 15) the description 
consists in the statement of the direction (els ...); cp. 21. 30 ciXkov 
e£(o tov lepov, kcu evOetos eK\eto-9rjcrav at Ovpcu (i.e. after the first action 
had been completed, so that there is an indirect indication of its 
completion), whereas in 14. 19 the reading ecrvpav (instead of eo-vpov) 
€^(o rrjs TroXews is preferable, as otherwise the completion of the act, 
which certainly was carried out, would be in no way indicated. 
Occasionally, however, we do find an imperfect contrasted with a 
subsequent verb denoting completion, where the descriptive clause 
has not previously been expressed: 21. 20 l8o£afov rbv 6e6v, eTirov re 
(' they glorified G-od for a long time and in various ways, till finally 

a v. App. p. 319. 

§ 57- 3-4.] IMPERFECT AND AORIST. 191 

they said'); 18. 19 SieXtyero rots 'IovSatots (D, the other mss. wrongly 
read -Xegaro or -XexOy), the conclusion is given in 20 f. (but in 17. 2 
[SteXeyero HLP is the right reading, see § 20, 1] the descriptive 
clause is present, and repetition is also expressed by the imperf.). 
The most striking instance is 27. 1 f. TrapeStiovv . . . Lin fiavres 8e y 
where the aorist (Lat. tradidit) must be considered to be required by 
the sense. Vice versa, the aorist is used by anticipation in 28. 14 
rjXdafxev, cp 15, 16; still more remarkable is Jo. 4. 3 <x7rr}\9ev els 
ty)v YaXiXaiav, whereas in 4 ff. we have the events which happened 
on the way and the arrival in Galilee only comes in verse 45. — In 
the Pauline Epistles cp. 1 C. 10. 4 eVtov (the fact), Zirivov yap Ik 
TrvevfmTLKrjs irerpas (the manner), 10. II ravra tvttikcos crvvkfiaivev 
■(manner and each thing considered individually), cp. with 6 ravra 
TV7TOL rjfjLwv iyevrjO^crav (result and all considered collectively). 

4. There are certain verbs in Attic, which in virtue of their 
special meaning to some extent prefer the form of incompleted 
action : that is to say, the action in question finds its true end and 
aim in the act of another person, without which it remains incom- 
plete and without result, and the imperfect is used according as this 
fact requires to be noticed. To this category belong KeXevetv, dgtovv, 
7rapaKeXevecr6(u, ipoiTav, 7re//,7T€iv, dirocrreXXeiv and many Others. In 
the N.T. KeXevetv like TrpocrraTreiv and irapayykXXeiv always denotes 
an authoritative command, the accomplishment of which is under- 
stood as a matter of course : hence we have eKeXevcrev (as in Attic in 
this instance) like irpocrkra^ev, TraprjyyeiXev, 1 likewise always eVe/x^cv, 
direo-reiXev ; on the other hand, rjpura (kir-qp.), with the meanings 
' questioned ' and * besought/ is found as well as rjptorrjcrev (iw^p.), and 
TrapeKaXu (for Att. 7rap€K€Xevero, which does not appear) as well as 
irapeKaXeorev (irapyvet A. 27. 9, literary language, y^iov 15. 38, ditto), 
but used in such a way that the choice of the one tense or the other 
on each occasion can generally be satisfactorily accounted for. Thus 
in A. 10. 48 rjpuT7}(rav is necessary, because the fulfilment of the 
request which did take place is only indicated by means of this 
aorist, 23. 18 is similar, whereas rjpura ' besought' in 3. 3 is used 
quite in the manner above indicated ; ' asking a question ' is gener- 
ally expressed by ripur-qorev (as it is in Attic or by fjpero), but in 
Mc. 8. 5 by rjpiora, 23 €7r^pcoTa, 29 ditto (which might also be 
employed in other places where the aorist is found, e.g. 9. 16); 
iraptKaXeo-av Mt. 8. 34 of the G-ergesenes who besought Jesus to 

depart (L. 8. 37 has rjpur-qo-av and Mc. 5. 17 yjp^avTo irapaKaXeiv, but 
D TrapeKaXow), where the fulfilment of the request necessarily 
followed; Mt. 18. 32 dcf>rJKa vol, eVetS^ irapeKaXecrds fie (the mere 
request was sufficient), 26. 53 TrapaKaXko-ai tov irarepa (ditto), A. 8. 31 
irapeKaXearev dvafSdvTa KaOto-at (the fulfilment is not mentioned as 
self-evident) ; on the other hand irapeKaXec appears in A. 27. ^ 
L. 8. 41 etc. 2 In Jo. 4. 52 kirvOero is incorrectly used, and the 
correct form eTrwOdvero has weak attestation (in 13. 24 irvOea-Oai 
[which should strictly be irwOdvevOai] is only read by AD al., whik 

1 2 v. App. p. 331. 

1 92 IMPERFECT AND AORIST. [§ 57. 4-6. 

other MSS. have a quite different reading). On the other hand 
eTTwOdvero is found correctly in Mt. 2. 4, L. 15. 26, 18. 36, A. 4. 7, 
10. 18 (BC hrvQovTo), 21. 33, 23. 19 f. — (Another instance of the 
aorist in John's Gospel, dirrjXOev els rrjv TaXiXalav 4. 3, is at least 
remarkable, since the aorist denotes the journey as completed, 
whereas in verses 4 ff. we have an account of what happened on the 
way, and the arrival in Galilee is not reached till verse 45. With 
this may be compared A. 28. 14 r)X6a{i€v, cp. 15, 16.)— With verbs 
of requesting is associated Trpoo-Kvuetv, which when it has this mean- 
ing is used as regularly in the imperfect (Mt. 8. 2, 9. 18, 15. 25 
K*BDM), as it is in the aorist with the meaning of ' to do homage ' 
(Mt. 2. 11, 14. 33 etc.). 

5. For the interchange of 'tkeytv (-ov) and ctirev (-av, -ov) the follow- 
ing rules may be laid down. The individual utterance of an 
individual person is principally denoted by the aorist ; on the other 
hand, the utterances of an indefinite number of persons are regularly 
expressed by the imperfect, which may also be thought to look 
forward to the conclusion given by the speech of the leading 
person, which is subsequently appended: A. 2. 13 with which 
cp. 14. 1 "EXeyev is sometimes used before speeches of greater length, 
as in L. 6. 20 before the Sermon on the Mount, after a series of 
descriptive clauses in the imperf. in verses 18 and 19 (Mt. 5. 2 intro- 
duces this Sermon with the words J6Y6W/<€i/ Xeyw) ; again there is 
a tendency to link on additional remarks to the preceding narrative 
by means of kgu 'iXeyev or 4X Se, Mc. 4. 21, 24, 26, 30, 7. 9, 20, 
L. 5. 36, 6. 5, 9. 23 and passim, while in other passages direv is 
used, L. 6. 39, 15. 11 etc. The words introduced by this verb may 
always be looked at in two ways : they may be viewed as a sentence 
which has been delivered or a speech that is being delivered, and so 
Thucydides introduces his speeches sometimes with ZXeyev, some- 
times with 4'Ae£e. Cp. also the use of Xeyuv (not etVcov), so frequently 
added to another verbum dicendi. 

6. The imperfect in statements after verbs of perception (and 
believing) is generally relative in so far as it refers to a time previous 
to the time of perception, and must consequently be rendered by the 
pluperfect ; synchronism (of the thing perceived and the perception 
of it) is similarly expressed by the present, § 56, 9. It is evident 
that the imperfect here still preserves its sense of continuous action. 
Mc. 11. 32 elypv rbv 'Iwdvrjv on 7rpocj)rjTr)S rjv, had been; A. 3. 10 
lireylvoxTKOV on rjv 6 KaOrjfjievos ; 15. 3 rjStcrav rbv irarkpa avrov (who 
was dead) otVEAA^i/ VTrfjpxev, Jo. 5. 13 ovk rjSet rts rjv (D for eo-rtv), 
had been; 6. 22 I8u>v (v.l. etdov, better etSws with e) on ovk tjv. In 
9. 8 ol deupovvTes avrov to irpoTepov (to irpor. is wanting in 1 Syr. 
Lewis. Chrys.) ot6 it poor air y)s rjv, the word Oeojpdv itself refers back to 
the same previous time to which the dependent clause refers; as this 
time remains unexpressed in the participle, it had to be expressed in 
the dependent clause by the imperfect. — For exceptions, see §o$, 9. a 

1 Jo. 11. 37 rives Se e'£ olvt&v elwov (after iXeyov ol 'lovdcuoi 36 ; AKII also have 
ikeyov in 37). a v. App. p. 319. 

§ 57- 7-9.] IMPERFECT AND AORIST. I 93 

7. The aorist, which denotes completion, may also express the 
entering upon a state or condition, when it is known as the ' ingres- 
sive aorist'; strictly speaking, verbs of this class contain in themselves 
an inchoative meaning besides that denoting the state : the former 
meaning becomes prominent in the aorist, and the latter mainly in 
the present (the former meaning also, though rarely, appears in the 
present, as in y^pao-Kw ' become old ' beside yrjpday ' be old ' : in Latin 
these inceptive presents are wide-spread). Thus ivlyiqo-ev A. 15. 12 
'became silent/ kirr^xevarev 2 C. 8. 9 ' became poor/ R. 14. 9 (Ap. 
13. 14, 20. 4) egrjo-ev 'became alive/ 

8. An action which the use of the aorist shows to have been com- 
pleted (to have taken place), need not by any means have been a 
momentary action, but may have actually extended, and even be 
expressly stated to have extended, over any length of time, provided 
that it is only the completion and the conclusion of it which is 
emphasized, this being just the force of the aorist. 'E/3tto iroXXd err), 
but then he died. "Err] 8vo rjp^e, but then he was deposed. It is 
different with KaK& Zgq (where the manner of life is emphasized : 
the conclusion is left out of consideration) ; and SiKatus rjpxe (8lk. 
rjpge would be in most cases ingressive, 'he came by his office 
honestly '). The same explanation applies to A. 28. 30 e/xeti/ei/ Surtav 
oXtjv iv ISlo) imo-Qco/jloltl (but then this condition of things came to an 
end), 14. 3 Ikolvov xp° vov Sierpt^av (until the end of their stay, nar- 
rated in verses 5 and 6, the length of which is summarily indicated 
in verse 3), 1 18. 11 kKadi<rev (Paul 'sat' i.e. stayed in Corinth) 
kviavTov koL pirjvas l£ (until his departure). In all these cases the 
only reason for the aorist is to be found in the added note of the 
length of the stay, which necessarily suggests the end of the 
particular state of things; Luke even says (A. 11. 26) eyevero avrovs 
zvlolvtov oXov crvvaxOrjvai ev rrj e/c/cA^o-ta, although crvvdyecrOai ('to 
assemble themselves') is certainly no continuous action, but only 
something repeated at regular intervals. But repeated actions, if 
summed up and limited to a certain number of times, may also be 
expressed by an aorist, as in rpls epa^lo-Orjv 2 C. 11. 25, and this 
tense may likewise be used where the separate actions of different 
persons are comprehended in a single word, irdvres yap e/c rov Trepicr- 
crevovTos avrots e/SaXov Mc. 12. 44, since in a comprehensive statement 
of this kind the idea of the individual actions which succeed each 
other becomes lost (previously in 41 we have ttoXXoI ttAotxtioi e/3aXXov 
iroXXd)? — If the aorist of a verb like pkvziv is used without any state- 
ment of the duration of time, then it denotes merely the fact that 
the stay took place, as opposed to departure : Jo. 7. 9 efxeivev ev rrj 
YaXiXata — ovK dvefSrj €t$ ''lepocroXvfjLa, 10. 40 tfieivev e/cet 'He settled 
down there/ without (for the present) returning to Judaea (B 4/zevei/). 

9. The meaning of past time, which generally attaches itself to 
the aorist, is lost in the case of the so-called gnomic aorist, which 

1 On the other hand, we have in 14. 28 dierpipov xpovov o$k okiyov, where there 
is no reference to a definite length of time ; cp. 16. 12, 25. 14. 

a v. App. p. 319. 


i 9 4 IMPERFECT AND A OR/ST, [§ 57. 9-10. § 58. 1-2. 

has greater emphasis in a general statement than the present which 
is equally possible. The latter, since it only calls attention to the 
repetition of an event on all occasions, neglects to express the fact 
of its completion : the aorist, referring to the individual case, 
neglects to express the general applicability of the statement to 
each occasion, which, however, is easily understood. This usage, 
however, is very rare in the N.T., and only found in comparisons or 
in connection with comparisons (Kuhner-Gerth ii.* 161): Jo. 15. 6 
€av firj Tts fxecvy kv epoc, Z/SXrjOr] e£a> cos to kXyJ^cl kol egrjpdvdrj (accord- 
ing to the Lewis Syr. kX. 6 ZgypdvOr] koi Zf3Xr)6r) e£o>), /cat crvvdyovo-cv 

avra kol els to 7rvp /SdXXovcrtv, KO.I KaUrat (so Hermas in a simile has 
the aorist followed by the pres., Vis. iii. 12. 2 KareXd^O-q ...e^ycpdrj 
... ZveSvcraro ... ovKerc dvaKZLTac dXX* Zcrr-qKev k.t.X. : 13. 2 eweXdOero 
... Trpoo-Sexerai k.t.X.). We have it also in similes (with no pres. fol- 
lowing) in Mt. 13. 44, 46, 48, Ja. 1. 11, 24, 1 P. 1. 24 from lxx. 
Is. 40. 7. The case is different with Herm. Mand. iii. 2, v. 1. 7, 
Sim. ix. 26. 2, where the aorist in the first place stands for a perfect 
[§ 59, 3], and the latter is a more vigorous mode of expressing some- 
thing still future, but certain to happen, Kiihner-Gerth 150, 166." 

10. The aorist in epistolary style, referring to something simul- 
taneous with the writing and sending of the letter, does not cease 
to refer to a moment of past time, as the time in question actually 
is past to the mind of the recipient and reader of the letter. In the 
N.T. the only instance of this use is hrep J \j/a in A. 23. 30, Ph. 2. 28, 
Col. 4. 8, Philem. 1 1 etc. ; on the other hand we always have 
do-waferou and ypdcjxo (in I C. 5. 11 eypa\j/a refers to an earlier letter 
[if the words h rrj eirio-ToXfi^ omitted by Chrysostom, are genuine], in 
R. 15. 15 and elsewhere to an earlier portion of the same letter). 


1. Between the moods (including the infinitive and participle) of 
the present and the aorist there exists essentially the same relation 
as that which prevails in the indicative between the imperfect and 
aorist. They have a single function (§ 56, 1), since they express the 
kind of action only and not a time-relation. As the optative is rare 
in the N.T., and the conjunctive, except where it is related in mean- 
ing to the imperative, does not offer any special difficulties for 
discussion at this point, we treat the moods in this order : Imperative 
(Conjunct.), Infinitive, Participle. 

2. Present and aorist imperative (pres. and aor. conj.). — The 

present imperative (with which must be taken the hortatory con- 
junctive, 1st pers. plur.), both positive and negatived by /x?y, is used 
in general precepts (even to individuals) on conduct and action ; on 
the other hand the aorist imperative (or conjunctive) is used in (the 
much less common) injunctions about action in individual cases. 
(1) If the aorist is used in the first case, then it must either express 
the entering upon a state of conduct which is in contrast with the 
conduct hitherto shown, or it is used comprehensively (cp. § 57, 8) 

a v. App. p. 319, 


to denote conduct up to a final point, or again the general rule is 
specialized so as to refer to an individual case. Exx. : (a) Ja. 4. 9 
Ta\aL7ra)pr)(raT€ koli TrevOrjcrare /cat KXavcrare . . . fjLeTa<rTpa<f>rjTO) . . . , 10 
TaTTetvcoOrjTe, i become sorrowful ' etc. 1 (b) Ja. 5. 7 p.aKpoQvpr)o-aTe 
€G>s rrjs irapovarias tov Kvplov, which however may also be referred to 
(&), cp. 8 fJiaKpoOvfxrjo-aTe Kal v/xets, crTrjpi^aTe ras KapSias vpLtov. 1 Tim. 
6. 20 (2 Tim. 1. 14) rr)v irapaOiJKrjv <fivXa£ov (cp. 1 Tim. 5. 21 iva 
ravra e^vXa^ys, 2 Tim. 1. 12 </>vAa£cu, 1 Jo. 5. 21 cjyvXd^are eavrd dirb 
tw eldcoXcov, 1 Tim. 6. 14 Trjprjo-ai . . . ^XP 1 k.t.A., 1 Th. 5. 23), 'up 
till the end/ to a definite point, whereas we have 1 Tim. 5. 22 
creavrbv dyvbv ri)pei (in all things, continuously), cp. Ja. 1. 27 dcnriXov 
eavrbv rrjpelv the true mode of Oprjo-Keia. Cp. also 2 Tim. 4. 2, 5 
KTjpv^ov €7TL(TT7)0t eXey^ov k.t.X.: KaK07T<i6r)<rov iroiiqo-ov TrXrjpocfroprjcrov, 
i.e. 'up till the end,' with reference to the coming of Christ, cp. verses 
I, 5, 6. 2 (c) Mt. 7. 6 p/q Score to dyiov tqls kvctlv, p,rj8e fidXrjre k.t.X.; 
6. 34 p) p,epcfjLvrj(rr}Te els r-fjv atfpiov (but without this additional phrase 
we have in 25 pr) pepipLvdre, cp. 31, 10. 19, L. 11. 22, 29); 5. 39 
octtls ere pairi^i els rrjv $e£idv criayova crov, crrpeipov avrco Kal tyjv dXXrjv, 
similarly in 40 and again in 42 tw airowTi ere 86s, Kal tov OeXovra 
dirb crov 8aveio~ao-6at prj dwocrrpac^rjs. That the present is also allow- 
able in such cases is shown by L. 6. 29 f. : tw tvtttovti o-e eirl ty)v 
criayova irdpe^e Kal tyjv dXXrjv . . . iravrl alrovvri ere SlSov, Kal dirb tov 

alpovTos Ta era pr) diraiTei. — (2) An injunction about an individual 

1 So also R. 13. 13 tbs ev Yjixepa evexofibvus TrepnraT7)ao)jULev with reference to 
the beginning and the entrance upon this state of things, cp. 12, 14. Hepura- 
reiv (and gtoix&v) when used in exhortations usually appears in the present 
(1 C. 7. 17, G. 5. 16, E. 4. 17, 5. 2, 8, Col. 2. 6, 4. 5, 1 Th. 4. 12, G. 5. 25, Ph. 
3. 16) ; but when the subject of discourse is the new life of the Christian 
answering to his heavenly calling, which produces a fresh beginning, then the 
aorist is introduced : R. 6. 4 tva ev KatvorrjTL fays irepLirar7}(T(j)[xev*'Ei. 2. 10, 4. 1, 
Col. 1. 10 (in the similar passage 1 Th. 2. 12 the readings vary between -rrepi- 
irare'iv and -Trjaai). — The force of the aorist is clear in (popTjdQfjLev odv rbv Bebv 
(which we hitherto have not done : just before we have bp& yap rtvas ctreXcts 
rip irpbs avrbv <popcp wXeiara dfJLaprdvovras)i Clem. Hom.xvii. 12 (elsewhere in that 
work, e.g. in chap. 11, we nearly always find <po(3eio-dcu etc.). In the N.T. cp. 
H. 4. 1 <f)opri9&ixev odv k.t.\. 'let us lay hold on fear,' Ap. 14. 7; in Hermas, 
Mand. vii. 1 ff. <Po^t]By]tl rbv Ki'ipiov Kal (pvXaaae ras evroXas avrov — rbv 8e didfioXov 
fir] <po(5r}6rjs—<f>of}rid7)Ti 8e rd 'epya rod 8iafi6Xov, the aor. in all cases being used of 
the fundamental position taken up : but then in 4 we have iav (so passim) 
SiXys rb irovqpbv epydo~a<rdai, <po(3ov rbv Kijpiov, and then again : <pofiridriTi odv rbv 
KupLov Kal fji<rr} avrip, Kal Sgol av (po(3r)0u>o~iv avrbv — £r)o~ovTai ; Mand. i. 2 irlarevcrov 
atrip Kal <po^6t}ri avrov, <popr)0els 8e iyKparevcrai, etc. 

2 Clem. Cor. ii. 8. 4 ryjp^crare rrjv crdpKa dyvrjv . . , iva ryv law airohafiufJLev, cp. 
4 rrjprj&avres ... \r)\(/6fi€0a fafy. Herm. Mand. viii. 2 has first rb irovrjpbv iyKpa- 
reijov, then iyKparevcrai dirb irovqpias iracrrjs, comprehensively : the present again 
in 3 ff. up to 6 iyKparevaat dirb irdvTwv rourwv, cp. 12 iav rb irovrjpbv fiy 77-0177$ Kal 
eyKparevcrrf air'' aur&v.' So also ix. 12 dotiXeve rrj iricrei^ Kal dirb rrjs foi/'uxtas diro- 
<7%ov. We have the aorist of the hypothetical conjunctive in Vis. v. 7 edv avrds 
(pvXdt-rjre Kal ev aureus iropevdrjre (cp. the last note on ireptirareiv) Kal £pydo~7)<r0e 
avrds . . . , dTroX^/xxpecrde dirb rod Kvpiov k.t.X. So too the striking uses of the aorist 
in 1 Peter must be explained by the instances in (a) or (b) given above : 1. 13 
reXeitas iXtrlffare 'lay hold on hope,' 22 dyairyaare 'lay hold on love'; 1. 17 dva- 
<rrpd<prp-e 'up to the end,' 5. 1 Troifidvare until Christ's appearing; 2. 17 
irdvTas TLfi7]o-are 'give everyone his due honour,' which is expanded in the 
presents following ri\v dbeX<f>brrjra dyairare etc. 2 * M v. App. p. 332. 

196 MOODS OF ■ [§ 58. 2-3. 

case is expressed by the present, if no definite aim or end f.,r the 
action is in prospect, or if the manner or character of the action is 
taken into account, or again if the thing demanded (in the case of a 
prohibition, the thing forbidden) is already in existence.^ Exx. : 
(a) Mt. 26. 38 = Mc. 14. 34 [xeivaTe &8e a Kal yprjyopeire jner epov, L. 22. 
40, 46 Trpoo-evyevOe [irj elcreXOelv els Treipao-p^ov. Frequently we have 
viraye, or wopevov, which indeed are often found even where the aim 
or end is Stated : A. 22. 10 dvao-rds iropevov ( c gO forth 7 ) els AafiacrKOV 
('as far as D.'), KaKei k.t.X., cp. 8. 26, 10. 20; Mt. 25. 9 iropevecrOe 
7rpbs rovs 7rG)\ovvTas (in this and that direction, where you may find 
a seller) koI dyopderare (aim) eavrals, cp. 25. 41 (where one should 
place a'comma after Kar-qpafxevot) ; b L. 5. 24 iropevov els rbv olkov crov 
(expressing rather direction than aim; whether he reaches his house 
or not, is beside the question), Jo. 20. 17. On the other hand, we 
have TropevOTjTL in Mt. 8. 9 = L. 7. 8 (iropevov in LDX ; a general's 
command to his soldiers; the goal or end is omitted through abbrevi- 
ation), 1 A. 9. II, 28. 26 O.T. (b) 1 P. 4. 15 paq tis vpLiov Trao~xeT(i>> 
«s <|>ov€vs k.t.X. ; 1 C. 7. 36 el 8e tls dcryrj^oveiv ... vopbi^ei ..., o OeXei. 
7roLeiT<x>' ovx afxaprdvei' ya/xetrcocrai/, cp. in the contrasted case in 37 
Trjpelv, and 38 6 yap J t^a)V . . . kolXws iroiel koX 6 /xt) yapLtfav Kpelcrarov 
iroirja-ei. In this passage the quality of the proceedings is in question: 
unseemly or seemly — sinful or not sinful — good, better. (^)L. 8. 52 
ckXcuov ... o 8e eTirev pbrj KXaiere, Jo. 20. 1 7 /xt^ p,ov dirrov (a thing; 
which has therefore already taken place or been attempted). Fre- 
quently p) ifrofiov, cj>of3eLo-6e, L. 5. 10, 8. 50, Mc. 5. 36, 6. 50 etc. 
(Mt. 1. 20 p) (j>o/3rj0fjs 7rapaXaf3eiv is different, 'do not abstain from 
fear') ; Ja. 1. 7 /w) oleo-Ou (cp. Jo. 5. 45 p) SoKeire ; but in 2 C. 11. 
16 we have p? tls p So£#, where the opinion certainly cannot yet 
have been entertained; cp. Mt. 3. 9, 5. 17, 10. 34 'do not let the 
thought arise '). 2 — 'Avn-dcracrOe is the form always used in greetings 
(even in 3 Jo. 15 according to**)**; the aorist is found in all the 
petitions of the Lord's Prayer, partly to express the desire for com- 
plete fulfilment, partly with reference to the particular occasion of 
the petition and the requirement for the time being : only in L. 11. 
3 do we have rbv dprov ... 8l8ov (kD wrongly read 80s as in Mt.) fjfitv 
rb kciG' Tjji-epav (D arjpLepov as in Mt.). 

3. Present and aorist infinitive. — In the infinitive the distinction 
between the two forms is on the whole easy to comprehend. Bekeiv 
is generally followed by the aorist infinitive, as is the corresponding, 

1 In the same passage in Mt. and Lc. 'ipxov must either mean ' go with me,' 
cp. Jo. 1. 47 tyxov /ecu l'5e, * go with me,' 1. 40, 11, 34, or ' come back again,' as in 
Arrian Epict. i. 25. 10 (quoted in the Appendix, p. 319) there follows 
7ropeijojuaL ; then a fresh command ""Ep%oi;," to which the reply is gpxoficu* 

J *v. App. p. 332. 

2 A special instance is <f>4pe, <f>epere ' bring ' (the pres. imperat. is always found 
with the simple verb, except in Jo. 21. 10 ivey/care), which as in classical Greek 
is used for the aorist as well, there being no aorist derived from this stem. 
But in the compound verb a distinction was made : Mt. 8. 4 irpoaiveyKe to d&pov 
(irnunction as to what ought to be done), 5. 24 8ia\\ayr)0i ... tcai rbre irpbafepe 
rb BQp6v aov (injunction as to the manner and circumstances in which it may 
be done ; * then mayest thou bring '). fl6cd v. App. pp. 319-320. 

§ 58. 3-4.] PRESENT AND A OR/ST. I97 

Attic word /SovXeo-Qai, and naturally, so, as the wish usually looks on 
to the fulfilment; exceptions such as 6kXu) elvai, rl OkXere irdXiv 
<xkov€iv (D -ovo-ac) Jo. .9. 27 ('to hear the same thing perpetually'), 
are easily explained. In the same way the aorist inf. is the pre- 
dominant form after SvvcurSai, Swards, kcXcvciv etc. (eKeXtvov paf3$iltw 
A. 16. 22 expresses duration, cp. § 57, 4, note 1). MiWw, on the 
other hand, in the N.T. as in classical Greek only rarely takes the 
aorist inf. : (A. 12. 6.AB), R. 8, 16 and G. 3. 23 [xkXXovo-av d-nroKa- 
XvcfiOrjvcLL (but airoKaXvivreo'dai 1 P. 5. 1), Ap. 3. 2, 16, 12. 4, where 
the aorist is obviously correctly employed, while the present if used 
in this connection goes beyond the proper sphere of that tense. In 
classical Greek the most frequent construction of pkXXeiv is that with 
the future inf., which in the active and middle voices usually has a 
neutral meaning so far as the kind of action is concerned ; but since 
the vulgar language abandoned this form of expression (pbkXXetv with 
a fut. inf. occurs only in the Acts, see § 61, 3), it allowed the present 
inf. to be used with the same range as the fut. inf. had previously 
possessed: /xeAAet TrapaStSoo-Oat Mt. 17. 22, for which we have also 
merely irapaSiSoTai, see § 56, 8. — 'E\ir£g€iv in the N.T. takes the 
aorist inf. (instead of the fut.), correctly so far as the action is con- 
cerned; cp. § 61, 3. Elsewhere too the infinitives keep their proper 
force : R. 14. 21 kolXov to firj (j^ayeiv Kpka /x^Se irteiv otvov /x^8e kv w 6 
dSeX^os orov irpocrKoirrei means, ' it is a good thing at times not to eat 
meat, if offence is given thereby/ and the passage is not to be under- 
stood of continual abstinence. 

4. Present and aorist participle. — A participle used in connection 
with a finite verb generally at first sight appears to denote relative 
time, namely, the aorist participle to denote a past event, and the 
present participle a simultaneous event, especially as the future 
participle (like the fut. infin. and optat.) does really express some- 
thing relatively future. Actually, however, the aorist participle 
contains no more than the idea of completion; if therefore the 
participle is followed by a finite verb, the sequence of events usually 
is, that the first-mentioned action was accomplished when the latter 
took place, just as the same sequence of events is expressed, if 
instead of a participle and a finite verb two finite verbs connected by 
kou are employed. This temporal relation, however, is not neces- 
sarily implied in either case : the phrase Trpoo-evgapLevot elirav A. 1. 
24. = 7rpoo-ev£avTO kol etirav = irpocrev^avTO etTrovres (cp. Mc. 14. 39) 
denotes not merely simultaneous, but identical actions. If the parti- 
ciple stands in the second place, as in Mt. 27. 4 fjfjLaprov irapaSovs 
aTp,a dOwov, or Mc. 1. 31 r^yetpev avrrjv Kparrjcras rrjs \€Lp6s, it may 
happen, as in the second of these instances, that the true sequence 
of time is not expressed, though in reality it is self-evident. Still in 
spite of this the reading of the majority of the mss. in Acts 25. 13 is 
not Greek, 'Kypiinras kol BepvcKrj KarrjXdov els Katcrdpetav dcnrao-dfjLevoi 
tov Qrjo-rov (since the participle always, as such, expresses an accom- 

198 MOODS OF PRESENT AND A OR/ST. [§ 58. 4. § 59. 1-2. 

panying circumstance, which in this passage, where the arrival is 
being narrated, cannot yet be regarded as concluded): the other 
reading do-Trao-ofxevoi is the correct one. 1 On the other hand, the 
present participle is occasionally used after the main verb, since the 
future participle is so rarely found (see § 61, 4), to denote an action 
which at least in its complete fulfilment is subsequent to the action 
of the main verb: A. 18. 23 ZgrjXOev (from Antioch) StepxoLievos rrjv 
TaXaTLKYjv x^P av {i- e - K0 ^ $ L VPX €T0 )> 14. 2 1 f. VTrecrrpeipav els rrjv 
Avcrrpav ... €7TL(TTr]pL^ovT€s Tots if/v^as T ^ v fiaOrjTiov : 21. 2 evpovres 
irXolov SuxTrepaiv els 4>OLVLKriv y 3 e/cetcre to irXolov rjv air ocfaopT 1(0 [levov tov 
yofjiov. In these last two passages the pres. part, clearly takes the 
place of fxeXXoiv with the inf., e.g. 'ifieXXev diro^opTi^eo-Oai, so that they 
are to be compared with o ipxo^uos = 6 fieXXwv k'px^o-dat and irapa- 
8l8otcu = pLcXXei irapaSiSoo-Oai § 56, 8; in the first two passages the 
participle is tacked on as it were to a finite verb instead of a second 
finite verb, to denote a subsequent action which in view of the actors' 
designs and preparations is regarded as already beginning to take 
place. In the following passages the fut. part, could have been 
used: A. 15. 27 aTrexTaA/ca/zei/ dirayyeXXovT as (but cp. Thucyd. vii. 
26. 9 €7repL\j/av dyyeXXovras Kiihner ii. 2 121 f.), 21. 16 crvvrjXBov ... 
dyovres. — The present participle when it stands before the main verb 
may denote something that is already past : E. 4. 28 6 KXewTuv (he 
who stole hitherto) /xr;K€Tt KXewTeTO), Ap. 20. 10 6 irXavu>v = os eTrXdva;, 
also Mt. 27. 40 6 fcaraAuW ... koX oiKoSofJbiov = os KareXves k.t.X. 
('wouldest destroy'), since it is obvious that the pres. part, like the 
pres. indie, may have a conative force (Mt. 23. 13 rovs do-epxopevovs). 


1. The perfect (as also the pluperfect) unites in itself as it were 
present and aorist, since it expresses the continuance of completed 
action : before the form Kadeo-raKa for ' I have placed ' arose, this 
meaning was expressed by h'x™ (p re s.) Karao-rrjoras (aor.), 2 and a per- 
fect like 7re7rXrjp(f)KaT€ in Acts 5. 28 may be resolved into e-n-X^p^o-aTe 
kolI vvv irXrip-qs ecrTt. In the N.T. this form of the verb is still 
constantly employed, and in a manner corresponding almost entirely 
to its classical uses : although at a subsequent period the popular 
language abandoned the old perfect, and let these forms, while they 
still continued in existence, do duty for the aorist. 

2. The present meaning so entirely preponderates with certain 
verbs (as in classical Greek), that the aoristic meaning disappears 
altogether: e.g. in KtKpayev Jo. 1. 15 a word borrowed from the 
literary language in place of the Hellenistic Kpd^et, cp. § 56, 5;. 

1 The use of the aor. .in John 11. 2 is noteworthy, %v 5e Mapia/m i) a\ei\J/a<ra rbv 
KtjpLov jjivpip, which is explained 'who as is well known (cp. Mt. 26. 13) did (or, 
has done) this,' although this story belongs to a later time and is told at a later 
point in the narrative, 12. 1 ff. ; but the verse is certainly an interpolation. 
Mt. 10. 4 'IotfSas 6 /cat irapadods atircv is different, = 6's /cat irapedooKev avrov Mc. 3. 19.. 

2 Demosth. xix. 288. 

§ 59- 2-3.] PERFECT. ig9 

ecrTYjKa (cp. 3), TrkirotOa, fzefivrj/iat (fxi/jLvya-KOfiai is almost unrepresented, 
only in H. 2. 6, 13. 3) 1 ; also redvrjKa 'I am dead/ r/XTriKa ets riva 
Jo. 5. 45 etc. * I have set my hope upon/ = I hope, but a stronger 
form than eXiri^u), because the continuance of the hope which has 
been formed is expressed by the perfect ; similarly irk-Kmo- \xai ' I am 
convinced' R. 8. 3% etc.; 07777/xat <I believe' or 'reckon' (class.) 
A. 26. 2 in Paul's speech before Agrippa (but in Ph. 3. 7 with its 
ordinary meaning ' I have reckoned '). 

3. Inversely, the aoristic meaning of the perfect may be brought 
into prominence and the other be made subordinate, without affecting 
the correctness of the employment of this tense. This happens in 
2 Tim. 4. 7 rbv kolXov dy&va rjycovto-fjLat, rbv Spofxov reTeAe/ca, ttjv 
ttivtiv rerrjprjKa, viz. up till dow, and the existing result inferred 
from this is stated in verse 8 : Xoirrbv airoKeirai fjiot 6 rfjs StKacoo-vvrjs 
(TT6cf)avos. In the well-known phrase a yeypacjxx y'sypa^a the first 
perfect has more of an aoristic, the second more of a present mean- 
ing. In the following passages the aorist and perfect are clearly 
distinguished : a A. 21. 28"EAA?pas elo-rjyayzv €ts to lepbv /cat k€kolvo)K€v 
rbv aytov tottov, the introduction of these persons that took place has 
produced a lasting effect of pollution; 1 C. 15. 3 f. on Xpivrbs 
dirkdavev . . . /cat on erdcjyr] /cat on eytfyeprai rfj rj/mepa, rrj Tpirr/ ; 
A. 22. 15 'io-rj fidprvs . . . &v Icopa/cas /cat rj/cowas, the fact that Paul 
has seen the Lord is that which permanently gives him his consecra- 
tion as an Apostle (hence Paul himself says in 1 C. 9. 1 ovk elfil 
dwocTToXos ; ovxi> 'Irjcrovv ... Iwpa/ca ;), whereas the hearing (verses 7 ff.) 
is far less essential. 2 Only it must be borne in mind that the perfect 
is not used in all cases where it might have been used, i.e. where 
there is an actually existing result at the present time : the aorist 
has ettended its province at the expense of the perfect, and here 
there is certainly a distinction between the language of the New 
Testament and the classical language. Thus Mt. 23. 2 kirl rrjg 
Moivcreios KadeSpas e/ca^tcrav ot ypapLfiareiSj though they still sit 
thereon: cp. H. 1. 3, 8. 1, 10. 12 for l/ca^to-ev : /ce/catft/cev only 
appears in 1 2. 2 3 ; Mc. 3. 2 1 eAeyov on i^o-rrj (he is beside himself), 
where D* has l^eo-rarac; 2 C. 5. 13 e^ko-rr]p,€v opposed to o-(x)(j)povov- 
fiev ; eo-T7]Ka had acquired too much of a present sense to be able to 
lend itself still to a true perfect meaning, and it is for this reason 
that ' He is risen ' is never expressed by dveo-T^/cev (but by rjyepOri, 
which is another instance of aorist for perfect, and kyr^yeprai 
Mc. 6. 14, Paul in 1 C. 15. passim, 2 Tim. 2. 8). Cp. § 57, 9 (even 
classical Greek has some similar instances of the aorist for perfect, as 

1 KeKTrjjuLaL does not appear in the N.T., but only KTrjaatrdai and KraaOai. 

2 Also Jo. 3. 32 8 eupa.K€ /cat ijicovcre, where likewise the principal emphasis is 
laid on the seeing ,*but in 5. 37, 1 Jo. 1. 1, 3 we have etapaKajxev and cucqicbaixev 
in close connection, where the hearing is regarded as equally essential. 
'Ec6pa/ca also appears in L. 24. 23, Jo. 19. 35, 20. 18 and passim ; dtaJKoa is rare 
and nowhere found in Mt., Mc, or Luke. 

3 It is preceded by virtjieive (rravpdv ('lycrovs), and followed in verse 3 by 
avakoyivaade rbv roiavrrjv v7rofi€/H€vr)Kora . . . dvriXoylav, the perfect being due to 
the abiding example which He offers us. 

a v. App. p. 320. !* v. App. p. 332. 

200 PERFECT. [§ 59. 3-7. 

in the saying of Euripides : rk olSev <d to tf]v fxkv Ian KarOavelv 
[ = reOvdvcu], to KarOauetv Se (rjv kolto) vojjll(€tcu ;). 

4. The use of the perfect instead of the aorist, in consequence of 
the popular intermixture of the two tenses (vide supra 1), appears 
undoubtedly in the Apocalypse: 5. 7 fjXde kol ei'A^e, cp. 8. 5, 7. 14 
eiprjKa (B €?7tov), cp. 19. 3 : in forms, therefore, in which the 
reduplication is not clearly marked. The following perfects have 
an equally certain aoristic sense : Herm. Vis. i. 1. 1 Trk-n-paKcv, 
iii. 1. 2 &Trrai tf (as w<£#7), Clem. Horn. ii. 53 eyrj-yeprai, Gospel of 
Peter 23 SeSw/cao-ti/, cp. 31. Instances in the Pauline Epistles: 
2 C. 2. 13 ecrx^Ka in historical narrative, whereas 7. 5 tvxqKev (B al. 
4'crxev) and 1. 9 eo-xrjKafjLev may be explained as true perfects ; 
dwecrraXKa in 12. 17 does not seem right, coming as it does in the 
middle of nothing but aorists (en-e^a is read by DE, airkarreiXa 
by some cursives) : the same perfect appears in A. 7. 35 tovtov 
(Moses) 6 Oebs apxovra dirko-TaXKe, most probably a wrong reading 
for atreo-TeiXev of OHP al. Also in 2 C. 11. 25 wxOrjfiepov kv tw ftv9cp 
TreTroirjKa stands in connection with aorists only and without an 
adequate reason for the perfect. But H. 11. 28 ttLvt€.i ireiroiyKtv to 
Travx<*< is explained by the abiding institution, cp. verse 3 (ly/ce/cat- 
vlo-tcll 9. 18), while 17 Trpocrevrjvox^ 'Afipaapb tov 'IcraaK can indeed 
only be understood as referring to the abiding example offered to us. 
Lastly, yeyovev is used for kykveTo in Mt. (and Apoc. Pet. n; 
Burton, p. 43) in (17. 2 according to Chrys. and) 25. 6 (B has 
eyei/ero). (In 1. 22 = 21. 4 the perfect could be accounted for, 
although John uses kykveTo in an analogous passage, 19. 36 : cp. 
Lightfoot, A fresh revision of the KT., p. 100 f.; there is still 
greater reason for ykyovtv in Mt. 26. 56.) 

5. In general statements or imaginary examples the perfect is only 
rarely used, as also in Attic it is rare in these cases. In Mt. 13. 46 
7T€7rpaK€v (e7r6\7)crev D) irdvTa ko\ rjyopacrev avTov the suspicion of 
an incorrect confusion with the aorist is obvious (no aorist from 
TTLTrpao-Kio existed), cp. Herm. Yis. i. 1. 1, supra 4 ; the same applies 
to Ja. 1. 24 KOLTevorjcrev kcu direXyXvOev kol ev$k(x)s kireXdOeTO. But 
passages like 1 Jo. 2. 5 09 av Typy . . . TeTeAetWat, Ja. 2. 10 octtls 
Trjprjo-y ... ykyovev (cp. 11), E. 14. 23 etc. are perfectly correct and in 
accordance with classical usage (Aristoph. Lys. 545 6 fiev tJkcov ydp, 
Kav y ttoAios, Taxy ... yeydfjLrjKev). 

6. The perfect is used relatively, instead of the pluperfect, in the 
same way as the present is used for the imperfect after verbs of per- 
ception (cp. § 56, 9) : Mc. 5. 33 elSvia o ykyovev olvttJ, Lc. 20. 19 D 
4'yvaxrai/ 6'ti tcprjKev (al. €t7rev = Mc. 12. 12); similarly after a verb 
expressing emotion in A. 10. 45 k^ko-Tyo-av 6tl e/c/ce^rat.* So also in 
L. 9. 36 we have ovStvl diryyyeiXav ovftev &v ktopaKavLV (D eOedcravTo), 
on the analogy of the equivalent phrase ov8evl diryyy. 6tl TavTa 
idipaKao-cv. Still we have Mc. 15. IO kyivcoo-Ktv OT6 TrapaSeSwKeio-av 

(but DHS read 7rapk8o)Kav as in Mt. 27. 18, AE al. TrapeSuKtio-av), 
A. 19. 32 ovk ySetcrav tlvos ev€K€v orvveXyXvdeto-av. 

7. On the moods of the perfect 5 it may be noticed that the 
imperative, apart from eppma-o 'ippojo-Oe (formulas in A. 15. 29, 23. 30, 

a b v. App. p. 320. 

§ 6o. § 61. 1-2.] PLUPERFECT. FUTURE. 201 

but not in all the MSS.) and the periphrasis with ei/u (§ 62, 1), only 
appears in the vigorous prohibition 7r€^>t^ wo "° Mc. 4. 39 (cp. rkOvaQi 
in Homer). 


1. The pluperfect, which naturally did not outlive the perfect in the 
Greek language, is still, like the perfect, a current, though not a largely 
employed, form with the New Testament writers ; even in classical 
Greek, however, it is far rarer than the Latin or the German pluper- 
fect, just because it is not used relatively as these latter are used. 
If an action has taken place, without leaving behind it an effect still 
permanent in subsequent past time, then the aorist must be employed, 
since the pluperfect = aorist + imperfect (cp. the perf. § 59, 1). L. 16. 
20 Adfapos 6/3e/3\r)To npbs rbv irvXuva clvtov, ' was thrown down and 
lay': Jo. 11. 44 ^ oi/'ts avrov (rovdapoco irepieSeSero, 9. 22 r}8y] yap crvve- 
reOeivTo ol 'lovSatoi, the stipulation even at that early date was made : 
A. 14. 26 air'eTrXtvcrav els 'Avtcox^olv, odev rjorav TrapaSeSo/xevoi k.t.X., 
that had the effect of compelling them to return thither/ 

2. The usages of the pluperfect, which vary with the particular 
verb and the context, correspond to those of the perfect ; the aoristic 
meaning preponderates, e.g. in A. 4. 22 6 avQpuiros £<ft ov yeyovet rb 
<rrjfjL€Lov, although the other meaning is present as well, and generally 
speaking an encroachment of the pluperfect into the province of the 
aorist can by no means take place. — A. 9. 21 &Se els tovto kXiqXvOu 
(i.e. Paul to Damascus, the words are spoken by the Jews) is ex- 
plained by the fact that this intention of the Apostle had now come 
to an end, and therefore the perfect was no longer admissible. 

§ 61. FUTURE. 

1. The future, as was remarked above (§ 56, 1), is the one tense 
which does not express action but simply a time-relation, so that 
completed and continuous action are not differentiated. The syn- 
thetic future has become extinct in modern Greek ; in the N.T. it is 
still largely used in the indicative, and is not limited to any con- 
siderable extent either by periphrasis (§ 62, 1, 2, 4) or by the use of 
the present (§ 56, 8). On the modal functions of the future in- 
dicative see §§ 64, 65 ; it is occasionally used in a gnomic sense (as 
in classical Greek), to express what may be expected to take place 
under certain circumstances, as in R. 5. 7 /xoAts virep StKaiov ns 
airoOaveiTai, cp. 7. 3 XPVf JLaT ^ cr€i ^ v y^ V7 ] TaL : so ^ ne fi rs t of these 
passages is an abbreviated form of eav Slkolios rj k.t.X. 

2. The future is used relatively in statements after verbs of 
believing, to denote a time subsequent to the time when the belief 
was entertained: Mt. 20. to Ivo/xto-av on Xrj\jrovTcu ( — peXXova-i 
Xapb/Sdvecv) ; cp. the present § 56, 9 : imperf. § 57, 6 : perf. § 59, 6. 
In this case, however, another mode of expression was scarcely 

a v. App. p. 320. 

202 FUTURE. [§ 61. 2-4. § 62. 1. 

possible, and the only difference in the classical language is that 
classical Greek uses the future infinitive, which regularly has a 
relative meaning, after voplfav, instead of on with the indicative. 
— In Jo. 21. 19 arr)fjLaiva>v ttolco Oavdro) So^dcret rbv 6e6v = rjpeXXev Sogd- 
£eiv, see 18. 32 ; class. Greek would have the same (or Sogdo-oi). 

3. The future infinitive, which like the participle and the optative 
of the future, expresses the time-notion relatively with reference to 
the principal action, has disappeared from the popular language, and 
is found only in the Acts and the Epistle to the Hebrews Rafter 
fxeWeiv in A. 11. 28, 23. 30, 24. 15, 27. 10, after tXmfav 26. 7 B (the 
other mss. have the aorist), after o/xviWi H. 3. 18. After peXXeiv 
the place of the fut. inf. is taken by the pres. inf., cp. §58, 3, rarely 
by the aor. inf.; after kXiri^eiv' 2 , irpoKaTayyeXXuv (A. 3. 18), ofxvvvai 
(2. 30), irpoo-SoKav (3. 3), ojnoXoyuv 'to promise' (Mt. 14. 7), the 
aorist infinitive is used, which preserves the nature of the action 
correctly, but surrenders the expression of the time-relation. 

4. The future participle, used as the complement of the principal 
verb (to express the aim or object) is likewise rare and almost 
limited to the Acts: 8. 27 iXrjXv6ei wpoo-KwrjcnDv, 22. 5, 24. 17, 
H. 13. 17 dypvirvovcrtv cos Xoyov aTroduo-ovTes ; Mt. 27. 49 ep^crat 
o-uxrayv, but *** has owat, D koX cruxreL. Its place is frequently taken 
by the pres. part., cp. § 58, 4; elsewhere by the infinitive (1 C. 16. 
3), a relative sentence (ibid. 4. 17) or some other phrase (Yiteau 
§ 288). Scarcely more widely extended is the use of the fut. part, 
in a more independent position (cp. § 62, 4) : 1 C. 15. 37 to crtopa to 
yevrjo-opevov (also probably B,. 8. 34 6 KaraKpLvuv), A. 20. 22 ra 
crvvavTrjcrovTa, 2 P. 2. 13 Kopiovpevoi ixurQov dftiKias (almost certainly 
corrupt ; £**BP read d§iKovpevoi), tls 6 KaKcocrtov vpas ( = os KaKakret) 
1 P. 3. 13, to ko-opevov L. 22. 49, 6 7rapa8(f>o-(x)v Jo. 6. 64, but there D 
reads 7rapa8i8ovs, w peXXuv 7rapa8i86vcu, as in 12. 4, while Nonnus 
omits the whole clause kcu tis k.t.X., H. 3. 5 twv XaXyjOrjaopevoDv (a 
unique instance of the fut. part. pass.). 


1. The classical language had already made use of dpi with the 
perfect participle as a periphrasis for the perfect, pluperfect, and 
future perfect, active and passive, which under certain circum- 
stances was necessary, but the usage was extended far beyond the 
cases where that necessity existed. In the N.T. the cases where 
periphrasis is necessary include the future perfect and the perfect 
conjunctive (or optative), excluding of course ol8a eiow; in other 
cases it is practically indifferent, whether one writes eireyeypawro 
(A. 17. 23) or tfv yeypappkvov (Jo. 19. 19 f.), ykypairrai (very frequent) 
or yeypappkvov ecrri (Jo. 6. 31, 20. 30 ; in the next verse 31 we have 

1 The fut. inf. appears also in the spurious concluding verse of Jo. (21. 25 
X^p^cret^, but with v.l. %wp^(rai). 

2 'E\7rt7w irecjyavepGxrdai 2C. 5. II shows the deflection of the idea of ' hope ' 
into that of ' think,' which is also in vogue in German (as in classical Greek). 


ravra Se ykypainai) ; cp. Herm. Sim. ix. 4. 1 v7rooeSvKa(rav - V7roSe- 
Svkvloli r)<rav. (Periphrasis in the active is less common, as in A. 21. 
29 rjcrav TrpotoipaKores.) Even where the aoristic meaning of the 
perfect (§ 59, 3) predominates, periphrasis may be introduced : ov 
yap kcrnv ev yw>vla ireirpayfxevov tovto (A. 26. 26). It occasionally 
serves to produce a more forcible and rhetorical expression : A. 25. 10 
(tf*B) ecrrm eirl rod /3rjpaTos Katcrapos elpu, which is better than €crrr]Ka 
e7rt ... or ZttI tov ... eo-rrjKa. An example of the pluperfect is L. 2. 26 
r)v avrco Kt.yjp-qp.aricrpkvQv', fut. perf. L. 12. 52 ecrovrat Siap.epepio-pkvot, 
H. 2. 12 Zcrofiai TreiroiOm O.T. ; conjunct. Jo. 16. 24 y Tren-Xrjpwpkvr] ; 
imperat. L. 12. 35 ecrrwo-ai/ Trepufao-pLevat ; even the participle itself 
is written periphrastically in E. 4. 18, Col. 1. 21 oVtcs (-as) a7rrj\Xo- 
rpnapLevoi (-ovs), here clearly to express still more forcibly the idea of 
persistence in the new condition of things (in the passage of Colossians 
/cat kydpovs is appended; cp. Aristoph. Ran. 721 ovo-tv ov k€kl- 
fiSrjXevpevois, dXXd KaXXtcrrots k.t.X.). A cognate instance is r)v 

K€ip€VOS L. 23. 53, = T€^€t/X€I/05 (§ 23, 6). 

2. EtfjLt 1 is further used to a large extent in the N.T. in connection 
with the present participle to form a periphrasis for the imperfect 
(r)v), the future (ecro/xat), rarely the present indie, (efyu), and occasion- 
ally the present infinitive and imperative (chat, to-Oc) ; this use is 
indeed especially frequent in the narrative style of Mark arid Luke, 
in whose writings the periphrasis mentioned in the previous para- 
graph (1) also finds the greatest number of instances (Buttmann 
p. 268). Many examples of this periphrasis may be quoted as paral- 
lels from the class, language (Kiihner-Gerth ii. 3 38 ff., note 3,) and it 
may be argued that this method of expression is analogous to that 
mentioned in 1, and that at least in the case of the future it offered 
the advantage of distinguishing continuous from momentary action ; 
still, in view of the absence of an analogous development in the 
Hellenistic language, one cannot fail to recognize, especially in the 
case of the imperfect, the influence of Aramaic (W. Schmid Atticismus 
iii. 113 f.), since that language made an extensive use of periphrases 
of this kind. 2 One cannot adduce in this connection instances such 
as R,. 3. 12 O.T. ovk <ecttlv ('there is no-one') iroi&v xpV (TT< ^ T V ra 9 
A. 21. 23 eicrlv avSpes ('there are persons here') €vxv v *X 0VTes ('who 
have a vow ') ; L. 2. 8 is also different, koI irotpkves rjo-av . . . dypav- 
Xovvres Kal </>*AdWovT€s, since the existence of these shepherds had 
first to be noticed, and then their occupation (cp. A. 19. 14, 24). 
But even after deducting all the examples, where the imperfect of the 
principal verb could not have been used or would not have had the 

1 Not virapxu, which only occurs in A. 8. 16, 19. 36 in connection with a 
perfect participle. 

2 In the case of the following writings — Mt., Mc, Luke's Gospel, and the first 
half of the Acts — this is no doubt due to their being direct translations from 
Aramaic originals. In John's Gospel in most passages (1. 9, 28, 2. 6, 3. 23) r\v 
has a certain independence of its own (1. 28 8-rrov rjv - ftaTrrifav , 'where he 
stayed and baptized') ; rp kolkqv iroiCcv in 18. 30 seems to be a wrong reading 
for rjv kclkottolos. In Mt. cp. 7. 29, 19. 22 etc. — In St. Paul, G. 1. 22 f. if/irjv 
ayvoorjjLLevos . . . aKotiovTes rjcrav. 


same meaning, the number of instances even in the Acts is consider- 
ably large : e.g. 1. IO drevl^ovres r)crav, 13 rjcrav Kara/uikvovTes, 14 rjcrav 
TrpocTKaprepovvTzs, 2. 2 rjcrav KaOrjfJbevoi etc. A periphrastic future 
appears in 6. 4 D kcrojjieda TrpocrKaprepovvres. (But from chapter 13 
of the Acts onwards the only further instances are: 16. 12 rjfxev kv rfj 
TroAet Starpi/Sovres, Cp. 14. 7, note 2 on p. 203: 18. 7 r) oiKia rjv <tvvojjlo- 
povcra [an easily intelligible use]: 21. 3 rjv diro^opn^pixevov, see § 58, 4, 
direcfyopTifcTo could not well have been used: 22. 19 rjfirjv (fivXaKifav 1 ). 
Instances of the pres. indie, being written periphrastically : 2 0. 
9. 12 ^ SidKOVLa ov fjiovov kcrrlv irpocravaTrXrjpovcra . .., dWa Kal irepicr- 
vevovo-a; Q. 4. 24, Col. 2. 23 2 , Ja. 1. 17, 3. 15, Herm, Vis. i. 2. 4 
ecTTLv pbev ofiv ... r) Toiavrri /3ovXr) . . . kirKpkpovcra a periphrasis for the 
-sake of emphasis, somewhat like Demosth. 20. 18 eWt 8e...exov; 
Mt. 27. 33 is corrupt (Xeyo/xevos om. « ca D); the phrase 6 kemv 
('means') fxedeppL-qvevofxevov does not come under this head. The 
periphrases of the impersonal verbs must be given a place to 
themselves, since they are not only common in Hellenistic Greek 
(Schmid Atticism, iii. 114), but are also found previously in Attic 
(lo-rt irpocrrJKOv Dem. 3. 24) : A. 19. 36 Skov kcrriv (cp. 1 P. 1. 6 Seov 
[ecrri]; Clem. Cor. i. 34. 2): i$6v (sc. ka-ri) A. 2. 29, 2 C. 12. 4.— 
Infinitive: L. 9. 18 = 11. 1 kv tw emu avrbv Trpoo-evxojjLevov. Impera- 
tive : Mt. 5. 25 icrdi evvouv (the verb is not elsewhere used in the 
N.T.), L. 19. 17 tardt k£ovarlav ex^y : Clem. Horn. Ep. ad Jac. 3 ev 
ictOl €t8ws. a Of the periphrastic conjunctive there is no instance. — 
Future expressing continuance: Mt. 10. 22 eo-eo-Oe fucrovfAevoi, Mc. 
13. 25 ol dcrrepes 'kcrovrai 7rt7TTOVT6?, L. 5. TO dvQpuirovs ecrrj £coypcoi/, 
1 C. 14. II 'kcrecrOe zfc dkpa XaXovvrts, Herm. Mand. V. 2. 8 €<rr) 
evpLCTKo/jLevos, Sim. ix. 13. 2 eery cfrop&v ; in these instances the reason 
for using the periphrasis can be recognized (cp. the periphrastic fut. 
perf.), see Buttmann p. 266 f. 

3. Ttvo^at is also occasionally employed in an analogous way to 
denote the beginning of a state. 2 C. 6. 14 jxr) yiveo-Oe krepo^vyovvres 
dirto-Tois ('do not give yourselves up to it ? ), Col. 1. 18, H. 5. 12, 
Ap. 3. 2, 16. 10, Mc. 9. 3 (7): the different tenses of yiVo/zcu are 
joined with the pres. or perf. participle. — The combination of etvac 
with the aorist participle, which is not unknown to the language 
of classical poetry, is only found in L. 23. 19 BLT oo-tls rjv . . . /SXyOeh 
(J3X. om. «*, the other mss. have /3e/3A?7//,€vos) kv rfj <j>vXaKfj, where 
the reading is therefore quite untrustworthy. 3 

4. Another way of expressing imminence, besides the future, is by 
pAXw with the infinitive, a periphrasis with which the classical 

1 This speech of Paul was delivered rrj ippaldi (puvrj. Cp. the author's edition 
of Luke's Gospel, p. xxi. 

2 "Ativ& icrTLv\6yov fih exovra crcxpias, cp. Demosth. 31. II otide \6yov rd TrpaLyix 9 
'4xov earl and other similar passages with ^x o}V (Rehdantz Ind. Demosth. ii. 
Partic. ). 

3 In the Gospel of Peter 23 deaeafxevos rjv, 51 rjv relets, this combination is due 
to a confusion between perfect and aorist; cp. .23 dedibtcacn for 'eSwicav. Clem. 
Cor. ii. 17. 7 must be emended to Zaovrcu d^av <Si>56vt€s. « v . App. p. 320. 

§ 62. 4. §63. 1-3.] INDICATIVE OF UNREALITY. 205 

language is acquainted and which offers this advantage, that it pre- 
sents a mode of indicating imminence in past time, e.g. L. 7. 2 rj/xeAAe 
reXevrdv and passim ; also a conjunctive can be formed in this way, 
Mc. 1 3. 4 otolv fieXXy o-wTtXeivOai ; and it serves to replace the fut, 
inf. and the fut. part, which are going out of use, and periphrasis 
is therefore generally employed in these cases, e.g. /xeAAetv iriixirpao-OaL 
A. 28. 6, 6 tovto fxeXXm* wpdcrveiv L. 22. 36. In the case of a parti- 
ciple, however, the periphrastic form is of wider application than 
the simple form, since the latter (as a relative indication of time) can 
never be employed in the genitive absolute, and nowhere at all 
except where it is definitely connected with a finite verb : periphrasis 
is therefore necessary in A. 18. 14 fieXXovros dvolyziv gen. abs., 20. 3 
yevo}ikvr)<$ €7rLf3ovXrjs avra} fxeXXovrt dvdyecrOai, Jo. 12. 4 'IovSas, 6 
fieXXwv avrbv 7rapa8i86vai (but in 6. 64 rts e<nriv 6 TrapaSuo-cov ABC al.,, 
cp. § 61, 4). 


1. With regard to the use of the moods the distinction between 
the language of the New Testament and the classical language is 
considerably greater than it is with regard to the tenses, if only for 
the reason that the optative which was disappearing (§ 14, 1) had to 
be replaced. 

2. The indicative in Greek, besides its primary function of making 
assertions abdut real or actual events (to which in all languages is 
attached its use in negative or interrogative sentences), has the 
further function of denoting unreality as such, by means of the 
tenses expressive of past time (since the form of the verb which is 
used to express that which no longer exists acquires the general 
notion of non-existence). The indicative, -however, is not used in 
this way in the principal clause without the addition of the particle 
dv, which differentiates such sentences from unqualified assertions 
about past time, whereas in the accompanying conditional and 
subordinate clauses, and in the kindred clauses expressing a wish, the 
indicative is used alone. 

3. In the NT. the indicative has not only kept the whole of this 
sphere of its use, but has also enlarged it at the expense of the 
optative. In the first place in hypothetical sentences, where 
unreality is expressed, the indicative is used both in the protasis 
and the apodosis ; in the latter the insertion of dv is not obligatory. 
Jo. 15. 24 el rd epya fir) €7roir](ra ev avrols ..., dfiaprcav ovk eiyocrav, 
cp. 1 9. 1 1 (where K A etc. have the wrong reading e'x €ts f° r € ^X es °f 
B etc.), 8. 39, G. 4. 15 (dv is added by K C D C EKLP); on the other 
hand dv is inserted in Jo. 18. 30 €6 /jltj rjv ..., ovK a dv o-oi irapeSioKafAev, 
and this is the case in the majority of instances.* The position of dv 
is as near the beginning of the sentence as possible : ovk dv passim, 

a b v. App. p. 320. 


ol vTrrjperat av ol Zfjiol r)yo)vi(ovro (Jo. 18. 36). 1 The tense (imperf. or 
aor.; pluperf. in 1 Jo. 2. 19) keeps the ordinary meaning of its 
action; the imperfect in other connections is ambiguous (in the 
passage above quoted rjytovL£. av is ' would have fought/ which was 
meant to be regarded as a continuous or incomplete action, since 
accomplishment and result were uncertain). 

4. The imperfect indicative without &v is used in classical Greek 
for expressions of necessity, obligation, duty, possibility etc., when 
one requires to indicate the fact that in reality the opposite is taking 
place or has taken place : while the present indicative asserts some- 
thing about present time, as it always does, and accordingly an 
appeal is contained in such presents as XP^ TrpwrqKei etc. In the 
former case we employ the conjunctive, it should or could be so, or 
where the possibility of anything happening is past, it should or 
could have been — a distinction which cannot be made in Greek ; the 
indicative is logically correct, since even in the case of the verb 
1 should J the obligation was already an actual one in past time (cp. 
Latin). The N.T. keeps this usage of the imperfect, but uses it 
further to denote what in classical Greek is expressed by the present 
indicative : A. 22. 22 ov yap KaOrJKev avrbu £rjv (KaOrjKOV D 2 , cp. 
§ 62, 2), they are asking for him to be put to death : Col. 3. 18 o>s 
dvfJKev 'as is seemly': E. 5. 4 a ovk dvrJKev (v.l. ra ovk dvrjKovra). 2 
Elsewhere the imperfect is used correctly : e8ei in Mt. 23. 23 ravra 
ZSei 7roi7JG-ai, KaKelva fjirj dfaivaL, a frequent form of this verb (also 
used of course where it is merely the past necessity which is stated, 
ov)(l ravra eSet P was bound '] iraOeiv rov Xptcrrov L. 24. 26) : &<f>eiXov 
in 2 C. 12. II eyco yap cocf>eiXov vcj>' vpwv crvvLcrracrOaL, but differently 
used in 1 C. 5. 10 €7ret dxfcecXere e/c rov Kocrpov e^eXOeiv ' must have 
otherwise,' where in classical Greek the insertion of av is at least 
admissible, as it is in H. 9. 26 €7ret eSec avrbv 7roXXaKLS iraOeiv : with 
Svvao-Oac in Mt. 26. 9 eSvvaro rovro 7rpa0rjvab ttoXXov : with an 
impersonal expression with eTvat, KaXbv rjv d ovk eycvvrjdr} Mt. 26. 24 
(KaXov kom IS. 8 is different; cp. 2 P. 2. 21 3 ). 

5. The indicative when used to denote an impracticable wish, in 
Attic is introduced by eWe or et ydp, but it is more inclined to use 
the analytical expression effle (el yap) tifaXov (with infinitive). From 
the latter phrase, through the omission of the introductory particle 

1 In this passage &v is wanting in B*, and stands after -qywv. in KB mg LX ; 
similar fluctuation in its position is seen in 8. 19 /cat rov 7rarepa /jlov av ydeiTe 
BL, rjd. &v wrA al. , where perhaps &v should be struck out with D, as it is in 
verse 39 on preponderant authority. L. 19. 23 K&y<b £\dui> <jvv tokcp av avrb 
'4irpa%a contains in iXdibv an equivalent for a (temporal) protasis. "Av cannot 
go further back in a sentence than ov : G. 1. 10 Xpio-rov dovXos ovk av ij/uajv. 
— Hypothetical sentences of this kind are remarkably scarce in the Pauline 
Epistles ; in the Acts they are wanting entirely. 

2 The Attic Trpoo-rjKet. does not appear in the N.T.; nor xpV except in Ja. 3. 10, 
nor 2£€<tti (for which e%bv is used, sc. £<ttl, § 62, 2) £%rjv, nor the verbal adj. in 
-t£os with r\v etc. 

3 The Attic use of the (aorist) indicative to denote what nearly happened 
{oXLyov edtrjo-a with infin., 0X1701/ eire\ad6ixr]v) is unattested in the N.T. 

§ 63. 5-7.] AND REPETITION. 20/ 

and through the auxiliary verb becoming stereotyped, there has been 
formed in the Hellenistic language the word w^eAe (Callimachus) or 
<b<j>eXov ofeXov used as a particle to introduce a wish with the indie. 1 ; 
6(f>eXov is the form which it takes in the N.T., where the particle is 
even used (§ 66, 1) with the future to introduce a practicable wish. 

1 C. 4. 8 ofaXov (D C EL w<£.) ef3aortXevoraT€, 2 C. 11. I ofaXov (<o</>. 

D C EFGKL) dveixco-Se fwv, Ap. 3. 15 (&</>. BP).— But if the idea of 
wishing is expressed by a particular verb, then a distinction is 
drawn in Attic between fBovXoi^v dv (a practicable wish, modestly 
expressed) and if3ovX6(jLrjv dv (impracticable), whereas in the N.T. 
both these meanings are combined in epovXdpiv or the more popular 
word ijGcW (without dv). a Thus A. 25. 22 eft. aKovcrai (perfectly 
practicable), B,. 9. 3 rjvxofj^u dvaOejuba elvai (hardly conceived of as 
practicable), G-. 4. 20 rjOeXov (modus irrealis, or imperfect of un- 
reality), Philem. 13 e/SovXojmrjv ('would have liked,' cp. 14). So also 
Herm. Vis. iii. 8. 6, 11. 4, Clem. Horn. i. 9 tfOeXov = (SovXoipbrjv dv. 
The classical optative is only found in A. 26. 29 (n c AB) ev^alixrjv av, 
,see § 66, 2. 

6. The indicative of unreality in final clauses, which are dependent 
on another indicative of this class, is not found in the N.T. ; on the 
contrary such clauses take the conjunctive, Jo. 18. 36 ol vTr^pkrai dv 
ot ifjiol rjyoyvc^ovro, iva pr) wapaSoOo) [rots 'IouScctots] (rots 'lovS. is con- 
trary to sense and is omitted by Chrys.), 1 C. 4. 8. 

7. While the classical language expresses indefinite repetition 
in past time in principal clauses by &v with the imperfect or aorist 
indicative, and in subordinate clauses by the optative, in the N.T. 
the former method of expression has been transferred to subordinate 
clauses in place of the optative 2 , while there is no instance of its use 
in principal clauses. The dv, which in this case is never dropped 
(eai/ may be used, see § 26, 4), is placed as in other subordinate 
clauses as close as possible to the particle or the relative. Mc. 6. 56 
•07rov lav (dv) ela-^TTopevero ..., kv rats dyopals eriOeorav rovs daOevovvras: 
15. 6 T> ov dv yrovvro, the correct reading, cp. § 13, 3 : A. 2. 45, 
4. 35 (KaOon), 1 C. 12. 2 (o>s). The aorist is by no means excluded 
{cp. for a classical instance in a principal clause Dem. 18, 219 6 /zei> 
ypd<f>(i)v ovk dv eTrpecrfievcrev), and SO we have in Mc. 6. 56 b kgu ocrot 
dv Tjif/avro (tfBD ; ijirTovro AN al.) avrov lcr<£>£bvro, LXX. Is. 55. 11 oara 
dv rjOkXrjcra, Herm. Sim. ix. 4. 5 orav irWrjcrav, 17. 3 s , Barn. 12. 2 
orrorav KaOdXev. Even particles compounded with dv, such as orav, 
take part in this construction with the indicative : Mc. 3. 11 ra 
7rv€vpLara, orav avrbv eOecopovv, TrpocreTriTTTov, Mc. 11. 19 orav (ore AD 
al.) o^e eyevero, Zgewopevero ego) rrjs TroXecos, where this particle also 
denotes custom, cp. L. 21. 37. 

1 So lxx., Arrian Diss. Epict. (where 6<j>e\ov is read by cod. S in ii. 18. 15) 
•etc., Sophocles Lexicon 60ei\w. ' 

2 So also Lucian D. Mort. 9. 2 ovriva fa> irpoaeQXexf/a. 

3 With pluperfect Sim. ix. 1. 6 orav emKeicaiJKei. a v. App. p. 320. 



1. The conjunctive has apparently the primary meaning of some- 
thing which should (or ought to) take place, and consequently its 
proper use is to express the will of the speaker, though in a less 
definite manner than the imperative, with which mood the conjunctive 
has close affinities. But the conjunctive, and especially the aorist 
conjunctive, also has close affinities with the future indicative. Not 
only has it to a large extent the greatest similarity of form (Xvoro) is 
the form of the 1st sing, both of the aor. conj. and the fut. ind., Xvo-tj 
is the form of the 2nd sing, of the same tenses in the middle), but in 
its manner of employment it comes into the closest contact with that 
tense from the earliest times (Homer). The future does not assert 
what is about to happen merely in point of time> but frequently also 
what is about to happen in the intention of the speaker : fiovXopai. 
Xeyetv gives the same meaning analytically, which Ae£a> gives syn- 
thetically. The conjunctive, on the other hand, actually has a much 
wider range of employment than is contained in the primary meaning 
above-mentioned, and expresses that which under certain circum- 
stances may be the outcome of the present position of affairs : from 
this it is at once apparent that it refers in great measure to the 
future, while past time lies outside its compass. In the final de- 
velopment of the language the future has been supplanted by 6eXo> 
iva (for which modern Greek uses 66) with the present or aorist 
conjunctive (so that action is differentiated in future time as well as 
in past time) ; the N.T., however, is still a long way removed from 
this state of things, whereas the mixture of the fut. ind. and aor.. 
conj. 1 has, in comparison with the classical language, made con- 
siderable progress. 

2. The conjunctive supplements the imperative (as in Latin and 
other languages) in the 1st. pers. plur., where there is no distinction 
from the classical language; this also happens, but in a somewhat 
different way, in the 1st pers. sing., since an invitation is there made 
to the other person to let the speaker do something; in classical 
Greek this conjunctive is introduced by dye and <£e/oe, also by Sevpo, 
in the N.T. by <x</>es (whence as in modern Greek) and Sevpo (plural 
Sevre) : Mt. 7. 4 ct(^es ei</3dXw rb Kapfos, A. 7. 34 O.T. Sevpo aVoo-TeiAco 
ere (Eurip. Bacch. 341 Sevpo crov o-rexf/d) Kapa), cp. Ap. 17. I, 21. 9. 
The same words may also precede the 1st pers. plur. conj. and (Sevre 
at any rate) the 2nd pers. imp.: Sevre dTroKreivoipev Mc. 12. 7, Sevre 
ISere Mt. 28. 6 ; defies iSupev Mt. 27. 49 (where the singular form has 
become stereotyped, as happens with aye, cf>epe etc.), Mc. 15. 36 «DV 
(dej^ere ABC etc.) = our 'let us see.' Again the conj. necessarily 

1 On this mixture in late Greek, which for instance introduces elVw <rpt - ipu>- 
croc, see Sophocles Lexic. p. 45, Hatzidakis Einl. in d. neugriech. Oramm. 
p, 218. So in Clem. Horn. xi. 3 /cat oiirus ... dvvrjdrj (main clause) = dwrjaeraL. 
But it occurs already in the lxx., e.g. Is. 33. 24 depedrj yap avrols i) ajLcapria,. 
10. 16. 

§ 64. 2-5. J IN PRINCIPAL CLAUSES. 209 

takes the place of the imperative in the 2nd person of the aorist after 
firj, as in classical Greek, and may do so also in the 3rd person (not 
frequently ; classical Greek also uses conj. or imp.) : \xr) ns avrbv 
egovderfoy 1 C. 16. 11, cp. 2 C. 11. 1 6, 2 Th. 2. 3. In the N.T. such 
clauses are often preceded (Mt. 8. 4 al., Mc. 1. 44, 1 Th. 5. 15) by 
opa, opare, fiXeirere, as well as a^es etc., which do not affect the con- 
struction, see § 79, 4. — On py expressing apprehension in independent 
clauses see § 65, 3 ad fin. 

3. The future indicative takes the place of the imperative in the 
legal language of the O.T. (not a classical use) both in positive and 
negative commands (the negative being ov), but the N.T. language 
apart from O.T. quotations does not appear to have been materially 
affected by this use. Mt. 5. 43 O.T. aycwrqo-cis rbv wXrjcriov <rov 9 but 
in the law of Christ in 44 dyairdre; ibid. 21 O.T. ov ^ovevo-ecs etc., 
but the future is nowhere used in this chapter in independent precepts 
of Christ, since even 48 eo-eo-Oe (yhecrOe Chrys.) rkXuoi is modelled on 
Deut. 18. 13. Elsewhere however there are some isolated instances 
of the future (2nd and 3rd persons) : 6. 5 ovk ecrecrOe, 21. 3 edv rt? 
vfjiiv €67177 rfc, ipetre, = drrare in Mc. 11. 3, Mt. 20. 26 (cp. Mc. 
9. 35) ovx ovrm 60-toll kv vpLiv, and then eWai occurs twice again 
in 26 f. with v.l. ecrrw (Clem. Cor. i. 60. 2 Kadapeis). With 
this is connected the reverse use of the imperative for future in 
Mt. 10. 13 (eXOdra) r) elprjvr) -u/xwv IV avrrjv [but ecrrat D] ... iiricrrpa- 
4>rjTbi), where the future is more natural and is actually found in 
L. 10. 6. On o<f>e\ov with the fut. ind. (in a clause expressing a 
wish) see § 66, 1. 

4. A further substitute for the imperative is afforded by Iva with 
the conjunctive (used independently ; cp. French que, class. oVus- 
with fut.), E. 5. ^^ (after dya7rdra)) rj 8e yvvrj tVa <fx)/3fJTou rbv avSpa, 
cp. 2 C. 8. 7, Mc. 5. 23 (see on ha § 69, 1). This may be extended 
by tfeAco: Mc. 6. 25 6e\a> ha Sws (80s Mt. 14. 8). Another substitute 
is a question in the fut. with ov (as frequently in classical Greek), 
A. 13. 10 ov iravo-rj Stao-rp€(f>o)v, though in this passage the imperative 
meaning is not quite clear, and perhaps a reproach is rather intended. 

5. The most definite form of a negative assertion about the future 
is that with ov |juf], which also appears in classical Greek and is there 
connected with both the future indicative and the conjunctive. 
Although the N.T. has this double construction of ov /mf), still 
the only certain instance of its taking the future is Mt. 16. 22 
ov {xt) ecrrat ctol tovto, whereas in the other cases not only is there a 
strong similarity between the form of aor. and fut., but there is also 
a variety of readings, while in numerous passages the conjunctive is 
by its peculiar form established beyond a doubt as the correct 
reading. Mt. 15. 5 ov /mr) TL[JLr)(reL rbv irarepa, but Tifirja-rj is read by 
E*FGK al. (a quotation of a saying of the Eabbis, 'need not honour'; 
in the lxx. ov [ir] is also prohibitive as in Gen. 3. 1), 26. 35 ov jxr) ere 
aTrapvrjcrofJLai (-o-(o/zat AEGK al.), Mc. 14. 31 ditto (-crw/xou kEFGK 
al.), Ap. 9. 6 ov pr) €vpr)o~ovo-Lv (evpucriv AP). (But Hermas has in 
Mand. ix. 5 ovSev ov pr) A^t/, Sim. i. 5 ov /at/ irapaheySrjo-r].) On the 



other hand the conj. is used e.g. in Ap. 2. 11 ov firj dSiKrjdy, L. 12. 59 
ov fjij] egeXQys, 13. 35 ov p^ idrjre \xz. a The conj. is always that of the 
aorist, whereas classical Greek also uses the pres. conj. The same 
form is occasionally used interrogatively to denote an affirmation 
(the relation between the two uses being therefore the same as 
between " ov 7rpd£u:' and " ov 7T/oa£oo;") : Jo. 18. 11 ou p) 7rtco olvto ; 
L. 18. 7, Ap. 15. 4 rk ov p) <j)o/37]6rj ; (the classical ov pii) \a\rjor€cs; = 
6 you will certainly not' = 'do not venture to' etc.). 

6. In questions of doubt and deliberation, as to what ought to 
take place, classical Greek uses the conjunctive or (more rarely) the 
fut. ind., as in Eurip. Ion 758 eiirwfiev ; rj crtycop:!/; rj tl Spdo-opev ; 
generally in the 1st person, rarely in the 3rd. The question is 
equivalent to \P1 : ^ ma y De introduced by fiovXec -eo-de (without a 
conjunction) : it is negatived by /a??. The N.T. in this case practi- 
cally uses only the conjunctive (the fut. is a v.l. in e.g. A. 2. 37, 
4. 16; on Ph. 1. 22 see § 65, 1), which is frequently introduced by 
SeXecs -€T€ (PovXeo-Oe), and in addition to the 1st person the 2nd and 
1st persons are occasionally used, where there is more of a future 
meaning : L. 23. 31 kv tu> £r]pu> tl yeV^rat (yev^o-eTat D ; 'what will 
happen then?'), Mt. 23. 33 wm 4>vyr}T€, 'how will (or can) you 
escape V, 26. 54, d R. 10. 14 f. 7rws ovv eVtKaAeo-GJi/Tat (-croi/rat KLP) ... 
ttcos 8e 7rio-T€vcra)VLV (v.l. -o-ovcrtv) ... 7rtos 81 dicoucraxriv (tf c A 2 B ; -crovo-iv 
L, -o-ovtoll n*D al.) ...ttws Se K7)pv£n)o-iv (the v.L -ovo-iv is hardly 
attested), ' how will they ' or ' can they ' : Hermas, Sim. v. 7. 3 ttms 
o-ooOrj 6 av0p(o7ros. In these instances classical Greek must have used 
the future, which we have in L. 16. 11 f. tls Trio-revo-st ; ... rk 6Wet ; 
cp. 11. 11, Mt. 16. 26 tl Su<reL = Mc. 8. 37 tl 8oL(8a>o-et ACD al.). A 
peculiar instance is L. 11. 5 rts e£ vp,a>v e£et <p[Xov, /cat iropevcrtTaL ... 
/cat eLTrrj (Ipet AD al.) ... 7 /ca/cetvos €17177 (Ipet D), where the thought 
is awkwardly expressed (§77, 6 ; Yiteau p. 10), and would have been 
more appropriately rendered by the conditional form of sentence 
(edv </>t'Xos iropevOrj etc.), and then the future would be in its right 
place in the apodosis. Cp. ibid, nt The fut. is used in the 1st pers. 
in R 3. 5, 4. 1 etc. rl epovpev ; (cp. Plato, Crito 50 b), which at least 
approximates to a deliberative sense ; and this is decidedly the sense 

of L. 22. 49 el (direct question, § 77, 2) -nraTa^opiev ev payaipj] ; (-oj/mev 

GH al.). — Question introduced by #eAets etc.: Mt. 13. 28 (9eXet? 
o-vXXe^ayfjLev'y Jo. 18. 39 fiovXecrOe diroXvo-u> ; — The question maybe 
put analytically by the insertion of Set (xprj being unusual in the 
N.T.), tl fxe Set 7rotetv A. 16. 30, or of 8vvao-6ciL for the other sense of 
the future or conjunctive, Mt. 12. 34 7rws §vvao-Qe XaXelv (Yiteau 
p. 32). — The pres. indie, is used very rarely in a deliberative sense 
in place of the fut. ind. (§ 56, 8) : Jo. 11. 47 (Herm. Sim. ix. 9. 1) tl 
TroLovfjLev ; for which there are parallels in colloquial Latin. 1 

1 In 1 Jo. 3. 17 jxevel should he written for fxeveu — Plato, Symp. 214 A ttus 
TroLovfiev is not quite a similar case ; it is not deliberative like rl iroi&jjLev ibid. B, 
but the present contains a gentle rebuke. a 6 v. App. p. 320. 



1. Indirect interrogative sentences, like direct, take the delibera- 
tive conjunctive, Mt. 6. 25 /x?) fxepipLvaTe ri <j>ayir]T€ : and here again 
the sphere of the conjunctive is extended somewhat beyond its 
classical limits, as in L. 12. 36 7rpocrSe^o/xevots rbv Kvptov, TTore dvaXvcry 
(-crec GKX al.), cp. Ph. 3. 12 with el ' whether' Siwkco el KaTaXdfio) 
{cp. inf. 6) : elsewhere this el is followed by the fut. ind. (In 
Mc. 11. 13 D gives the reading ISeh edv [cp. inf. 4] tl euTLV ev avry.) 
In the region of past time, where the classical language according to 
rule employs the optative, the N.T. in this as in other cases retains 
the conjunctive (though not always in St. Luke, see § 66, 3): A. 4. 21 
jU/^Sev evpto-Kovres to ttcos KoXdcro)VTaL avTovs. # The use of the fut. ind. 
(also possible in class. Greek) in deliberative sense is hardly attested 
by Ph. 1. 22 tl alprjfTonai ov yvaipifo, where the better punctuation 
is tl alprjo-o ; (cp. § 77, 6; B has cup^crto/xou). 

2. Final clauses introduced by I'va, Sttcos, htj have very largely 
extended the range of their use in the N.T in consequence of the 
infinitive being expressed by a periphrasis with ha; we are here 
only concerned with the mood, which is in no way influenced by 
the character of ha, whether it be a true final particle or not. This 
mood in the N.T. is generally the conjunctive, without regard to the 
right which the optative formerly possessed of expressing purpose 
from a past point of view, or from that of some person introduced 
by the narrator 1 ; to a rather less extent the future indicative is also 
introduced, and just where in classical Greek it is not found, namely 
after ha and final pj, whereas the Attic use of oVcos and oVcos py in 
connection with the fut. ind. (after verbs of deliberating, striving, 
taking care) is not found in the N.T. With verbs of this class the 
particles used throughout the N.T. are ha and for negative ha pq or 
jj,r] : 07ra)s, in so far as it appears at all (never in the Apoc, only once 
in St. John's Gospel, 2 and not often in St. Paul), is limited to a 
purely final meaning and to its use in connection with verbs of 
asking (irapaKaXelv etc.). "Ottus has further lost, with the exception 
of some few passages in Luke and a quotation from the lxx., the dv 
which is often appended to it in Attic Greek; this particle was 
never even in Attic annexed to ha and /x^. On p.r\ (jxrpvoTe) express- 
ing apprehension, vide inf. 3. — The fut. ind. after ha occurs most 
frequently in the Apocalypse: 22. 14 ha co-rat ... /cat elo-eXSwo-iv 
(thus the two forms are regarded as equivalent), 3. 9 ha tj^ovo-lv 
(-o)crt B) Kal Trpoo-Kwrjo-ovcTLV (-crwcriv B) ... Kal yvcouriv (tf reads yvaxrr) 

1 The supposed optat. dtiy in E. 1. 17 is really conjunctive (§ 23, 4 ; B gives 
correctly 5$). 

2 The passage is 11. 57, where ottojs is evidently used for the sake of variety, 
since a Iva has occurred immediately before ; the same reason applies to its use 
in St. Paul in 1 C. 1. 29, 2 C. 8. 14, 2 Th. 1. 12 (but not in 2 C. 8. 11, G. 1. 4, 
Philem. 6 : tva ... Iva occurs in G. 4. 5, 1 C. 4. 6). 


not well), 8. 3 Swo-et (-y BP), similarly in 13. 16 (written Ao>ci,. 
from which the wrong reading Sgxt-^v) arose). See also 6. 4, 11, 
9. 4, 5, 20, 13. 12, 14. 13. In St. Paul we have: 1 C. 9. 15 iva tls 
(o-uSets is wrong) Kevcocrefc, 18 iva dycro), 13. 3 -irapaSut Iva KavOycrofxau 
(the readings -o-w/xat CK, Kavxyo-^ai nAB are wrong), G-. 2. 4 *ara- 
SoiAaxrouo-iv (kAB*CDE), Phil. 2. n. Also probably 1 Th. 5. 10 
Iva (rjoro/JLev (A ; D*E have (ujfjLtv ; the aorist (rjcno^ev of tt etc. would 
mean 'come to life again* as in R. 14, 9): in this passage dv is 
also omitted from an intervening clause, Iva el're ypyyopQ^ev tire 
Ka0ev8o)fi€v k.t.X., cp. Ph. 1. 27 iva etre aKova) (conj.). Other passages 
are : 1 P. 3. 1 KepSyOycrovrai, Jo. 17. 2 Swcrei (-y N C ACG al, Stocroj «*,, 
*X?7 D)> L. 14. 10 ipet with v.l. in AD al. tiny, 20. 10 Sojo-ovctlv with 
v.l. in CD al. Sojo-iv. With /^ : Col. 2. 8 fiXkireTt py ... eWat, H. 3. 12 
/3\e7r€T€ fiyTTOTt . . . torrai. A special instance is that where a conj. 
after Iva (or /x^) is succeeded by a fut. linked on to the conj. by a 
/vat to denote a further result: A. 21. 24 IVa ^vpya-covrai (-ovrat 
nB*D' 2 E al.) ..., mt yvMa-ovTat, for which Kal yvakriv was at any rate 
possible ; the same arrangement is used elsewhere in the N.T., and 
moreover in cases where the second verb should, strictly speaking,, 
have been subordinated to the final particle; there appears therefore 
to be a kind of Hebraism underlying this construction, as in the 
lxx. this habit of writing the second verb in the future is very 
widely extended (Viteau, p. 81 f.). Eph. 6. 3 O.T. Iva ... ykvyrai Kal 
eery, Jo. 15. 8 iva Kapirov . . . cfaepyTe Kal yevycrea-Oe (yevycrOe BDLal.) ipiol 
fjLaQrjTaL L. 22. 30 (with many vv.ll.), 12. 58 ((JLyirore), Mt. 5. 25 
(ditto), Mc. 5. 23 (according to A), Mt. 13. 15 = Jo. 12. 40 = A. 28. 27 
O.T. (Is. 6. 10 /xyiroTe or iva piy), Barn. 4. 3 iVa rayxwy Kal y^eu (« for 
-£#), Herm. Mand. vi. 2. 10, Sim. ix. 7. 6, 28. 5. There is the same 
construction after an independent, conj., ayopao-ufiev Kal Swo-o/xev 
Mc. 6. 37 ALA (-o)/x€i/ kBD, al. 6w/*ev) ; and in Hernias after an 
imperat., Vis. i. 1. 3 \d/3e Kal aVoSoxrets /xot, Mand. ii. 1 a/ca^os yivov 
Kal eu-y m (esto Lat.). — "Ottcos dv occurs in L. 2. 35, A. 3. 19, 15. 17 
O.T. (Amos 9. 12, our text has no av) ; also in a quotation in E. 3. 4 
= Ps. 51. 6. — The present indie, after iva is of course simply due to 
corruption of the text. 1 

3. Mtj after words expressing apprehension (^ofSov/mai etc.) is not 
final, but is akin to the py which expresses apprehension in inde 
pendent sentences such as py dypoiKortpov y 'it is perhaps too rude 7 
(Plato). Still from one point of view this p.y does border on the 
meaning of final \iy, since an apprehension of something eventually 
happening has for its immediate result the purpose of avoiding this 
thing. In the N.T. this /my of apprehension is usually strengthened 
by 7tot€ or 7tws: fxyirore, [xyTrws. On the other hand the idea of nega- 
tion in the py is so far weakened, that it is used to introduce some- 
thing which is surmised, where there is no idea of warding it off : 
accordingly in Hellenistic Greek /myTrore in a principal clause means 
c perhaps/ in a dependent clause ' if perchance,' ' if possibly ' : 

- x Jo. 5. 20 ttL, G. 6. 12 ACF al., Tit. 2. 4 K*AF al. etc. But <j>v<riovffde 1 C. 
4. 6 and fyXovre G. 4. 17 are conjunctives, see § 22, 3. 


(L. 3. 15 an indirect question), 2 Tim. 2. 25 p^ro-re ow 1 olvtols 6 
Oebs k.t.X. If the thing (surmised or) feared is something negative, 
then the formation (as in classical Greek) is /xrj ov : Mt. 25. 9 /jaJTrore 
ovk apKeo-rj KAL2, for which BCD al. have the not impossible reading 
ji. ov fiYj dpK. (dpK6o-€i D). The classical construction, if the appre- 
hension has reference to something which is still dependent on the 
will, is always the conjunctive : if it refers to something which has 
already taken place or generally to something independent of the 
will, any tense of the indicative may also be used (the indicative is 
always used in reference to a past event). In the N.T. the phrase 
4opov^at |ufj is found only in Luke and Paul (Hebrews) : A. 23. 10 
cjx)f3r}6els (HLP evXafi-qOeh) p) 8tacr7rao-0rj, cp. 27. 17, 29, 2 C. 11. 3 
(/x^7rws), 12. 20 (ditto), G. 4. 11 (ditto), H. 4. 1 here firjTroTe Sokyj, in 
G-. 4. 11, with reference to something which has taken place, it takes 
the perf. indie. (KeKOTrcaKa), elsewhere the aor. conj. ; clearly this 
construction </)o/3ou/xcu /jltj was a literary and not a popular one 
(Viteau, p. 83). There is a greater frequency of dependent clauses 
with [kiproTe (nTjirws), which are attached to any verb, to express the 
accompanying feeling of apprehension by which the action related is 
influenced, the construction varying as before : GT. 2. 2 dved'ep^v avrocs 
to evayyeXiov . . . , /JLr)7T(DS els Kevbv rpe^co (conj.) r/ eSpa/mov, 1 Th. 3. 5 

€7T€fl\f/a €CS TO yi'UJVat TYjV 7TIO-TIV VfJLCQV, [ITjTTOiS €7T€ipaO~€V VflOLS 6 OTOLTaVaS 

Kal els Kevbv yevrjrai (the issue feared) 6 K07ros rjjuLwv (L. 3. 15 with 
optat., see § 66, 3). There is a transition to final ^ m L. 14. 8 f. 
jultj KaraKXiBrjs ..., ixrprore . . . y KeKXrjfievos 2 (tf£et, D)-.., Kal epel (cp. 
supra 2). As in the last passage D has the fut. = conj., so we find 
this tense occasionally elsewhere : Mc. 14. 2 ixrproTe ea-rai (Mt. 7. 6 
v.l.), Herm. Sim. ix. 28. 7, Mand. x. 2. 5 (evrevgerai should be read 
for -iqrai) ; cp. /3Xe7rere /jlyj (fjurjirore) &rrai Col. 2. 8, H. 3. 12, final 
(supra 2). — Independent clauses with h-tj and the conj. usually have 
an imperative meaning, § 64, 2; under this head comes 1 Th. 5. 15 
opdre fjirjTis a7roSofc, dXXd . . . 8icok€T€ (on opdre before the imperat. and 
conj. see §§ 64, 2 ; 79, 4). An exception to this is Mt. 25. 9 ixrprore 
ovk apKeo-j), vide supra. 

4. Of conditional sentences the four following forms exist in 
classical Greek : (1) el with indicative, denoting something which is 
simply regarded as actual ; (2) edv with conjunctive, to express that 
which from the given stand-point of present time, the time in ques- 
tion being either general or a special occasion, I wish to denote as 
under certain circumstances actual or liable to happen ; (3) el with 
optative, if I wish to represent anything as generally possible, with- 
out regard to the general or actual situation at the moment (hence 
also used with reference to a position of affairs in past time) ; (4) el 
with imperfect, aorist, or pluperfect indicative, to denote that the 
actual state of things is the opposite to the case supposed, vide supra 
§ 63, 2 and 3. The distinction between (1) and (2) is very slight in 

1 Not dyr) optat. ; cp. § 23, 4 and supra 2, note 1. 

2 This perf. conj. also occurs in Jo. 17. 19, 23, 1 C. 1. 10, 2 C. 1. 9, and is in 

all cases easily intelligible. 


the ease of el with the fut. indie, since edv with the aor. conj. also 
generally refers to the future — lav vecry = si ceciderit ; the indicative, 
however, expresses a more definite expectation. — In the N.T. (3) is 
hardly represented (see § 66, 4); (1) and (2) have come into still 
closer contact, as is seen especially in the fact that edv may also be 
joined with the indicative. We note at the outset that the dissyllabic 
form of this particle is the regular one (cp. eavrov, where Attic has 
both eavrov and avrov), whereas inversely the form edv for dv is 
frequently employed in relative sentences (inf. 7), § 26, 4. Still 
' and if,' 'even if,' may be k&v : Mt. 21. 21 (D Kal...edv), L. 13. 9 
(kou edv D) etc. (see § 5, 2). Externally then the prominent dis- 
tinction between (1) and (2) is that the negative used with et is ov,, 
while with edv it is (as in all Attic conditional sentences) /^, see 
§ 75, 3. But the internal distinction between the two forms has not 
been quite lost. It is only modern Greek which denotes every c if ' 
by dv ; in the N.T. el with the indicative is obligatory for all sup- 
positions referring to what has already taken place : Mc. 3. 26 el 6 
o-aravds dvecrrrj eft eavrov (which according to the speech of Christ's 
opponent must already have taken place), contrast ibid. 24 in an 
imaginary instance, edv /Sao-tXeca e<f> eavrrjv jjLepicrdrj. The same dis- 
tinction holds good where the two forms occur in even closer 
connection, as in Jo. 13. 17 el ravra ocSare (present reality ), a naKapiol 
ecrre eav iroir\re avrd (future), or 1 C. 7. 36 el 8e Tts acr^/xo^etv eVt 
rrjv rrapOevov avrov vo^i^ei (reality), edv fj vTrepaKfjios (future), i.e. the 
indicative is used where a supposition is made with regard to some- 
thing now actually existing, and the only irregularity is that this 
present indicative is occasionally preceded by edv instead of el : 
1 Jo. 5. 15 edv otda^ev (the reading of tf c t'8w/xei/ is not good), 1 * 
1 Th. 3. 7 edv vfjLets <nr\Kere (-rjre k*DE), whereas before the imperf. 
and aor. indie, the N.T. like classical Greek always uses el. 2 
(Inversely in 1 Th. 5. 10 ehe...eire takes the conjunctive, in a 
clause inserted in the middle of a final sentence, vide supra 2.) Et 
with the pres. indie, is used with reference to present reality also in c 
G. 1. 9 (8 is different) ; on the other hand edv with pres. conj. is very 
rarely so used, A. 5. 38 edv fj e£ dvOpcowiov rj povXrj avrr) k.t.X. followed 
in 39 by el Se eK Oeov evTiv, where we should no doubt understand 
the meaning to be : ' If perchance it should be — but if, as these 
persons maintain, it really is' etc. That in fact is very often the 
meaning of this et : ' if really ' (as is maintained), or even ' if accord- 
ingly' (as follows from what has been said): in the latter case it 
approximates to the meaning of eirei. Et ravra iroieis (' really'), 
(fravepuicrov creavrov tw Koorpbu) Jo. 7. 4. Et rbv \6prov ... 6 Oebs ovrm 
dfjLcfrievvvcrLv ('accordingly,' see verses 28 f.), 7roo-o> /maXXov v^ds 
Mt. 6. 3Q. 'EdV, on the other hand, when referring to an actually 

1 Not very different in meaning is 1 Jo. 2. 29 eav eldijre, where the transition 
from el with indie, to the other, apparently less suitable, mode of expression 
{iav c. conj.) is quite carried out ('as' or 'as soon as you know ..., so you also 

2 lxx. also has eav av rjada Job 22. 3. a b c v. App. pp. 320-321. 


existing state of things, makes the supposition indefinite : 1 C. 4. 1 5 
eav yap fivpiovs 7raiSayco<)/oL>s ^XV T€ ('even if you should have'), 
Jo. 5. 31 lav eyo> fiaprvpoj ('if perchance'; one might also treat 
fJLaprvpa) as an indie, vide supra) Trepl epavrov, f) paprvpia piov ovk 
eo-TLv dXrjOrjs. 1 On the other hand, with reference to things which 
may or may not happen at any time, eav with the pres. conj. is the 
regular construction, though indeed in the N.T. d with the indie, is 
also found used in this way : Mt. 5. 29 d 6 6<j>6aX{i6s crov o-KavSaXlfa 
ere, cp. 30, 18. 8 f. (but eav o-Kav8aXi(r} Mc. 9. 43, 45, 47), L. 6. 32 
el dyarrdre, but in 33 eav dya6o7roLr)~e (Mt. 5. 46 eav dyaTrrjo-qre). 
Quite incorrect is Mc. 9. 42 KaAov eVriv aww p.dXXov el irepLKeiTai ... 
Kal /3e/3Xr]TaL (D is correct with TrepteKecro ... e/3Xrj0r]), = L. 17. 2 
(irepieKeLTo - ep(p)i7rro D). ; Eav with the pres. conj. in other cases 
refers to the future : eav OeXys, Svvacrai 2 Mt. 8. 2 etc., eav pe 8ey 
Mc. 14. 31, 1 Jo. 2. 3 eav rrjpiopLev (<j>vXdg<opLev »*), cp. I tVa pLrj 
dpLapryre and eav tls dpLapry. 

5. (Continuation: el with future, Idv with aor. conj. and fut.) 
The connection of el with the fut. indie, is quite rare in the N.T., 
but keeps fairly well its meaning of a definite supposition : Mt. 26. 33 
= Mc. 14. 29 el (KaT) irdvres crKavSaXicrOrjo-ovTai (i.e. as you have just 
now said ; cp. supra 4) ; 2 Tim. 2. 1 2 el apvyaopeOa parallel with el 
(TvvaTreOdvopiev ... el vwopLevopLev k.t.X.; 1 P. 2. 20 twice el VTropLevetre, 
preceded by el viro^epet tis 19 : in this case eav viro^epy and eav 
vTTopLeivrjTe might at least be thought to be equally possible. In K 1 1 . 8 
el Kal ov Swo-et is incorrect for lav Kal pjt) 6w ; cp. the intermixture of 
fut. and aor. conj. ibid. 5 ff. The fut. is correct in 1 C. 9. 11 
Oepio-opiev (-crw/xev CDE al.) and 3. 14 f. el pbevei ... el KaraKarjcreraL, of 
a definite point of future time, the day of judgment (Ap. 13. 10 v.L). 
A marked Hebraism is the use of el in oaths and asseverations 
= that not (Hebr. ££*) : Mc. 8. 12 et SoOrjo-eraL, H. 3. 11, 4. 3 O.T. 
— For eav with fut. indie, there is no quite certain instance : see 
Mt. 18. 19 eav o-vpLcfxovrjcrovcrLv (-axriv FGKM al.), a general statement ; 
L. 19. 40 eav o-LWirrjcrovcrLV ttAB al., onyrjerovcriv D, crLaiTrrjarcocnv TA al., 
of something impending at the present moment; A. 8. 31 eav /x^ tis 
oSrjyrjo-eL /xe KB*CE (ditto); Ap. 2. 22 ttA (ditto, but in 5 eav fir) 
pLeravorjo-ys). Cp. Herm. Mand. v. 1. 2 eav eo-rj (as pr. man. ijs), iv. 3. 7 
eav prjKerL TrpocrOrjcro), Vis. i. 3. 2 v.L The bulk of the instances 
exhibit the aor. conj. both in general statements and in those refer- 
ring to what is now impending : cp. for the latter case Mt. 21. 25 
eav et7ra)//,ev, Jo. 16. 7 eotv pirj direXOdi ... eotv 8e 7ropev6Q>. It is further 
used (in the province of the optative, see § 66, 4) with reference to 
what was impending in a past state of things : eav evpy A. 9. 2. 

6. Concessive sentences introduced by el Kal or lav Kal 'even if 
call for no special remarks, especially as there is no real distinction 
between them and conditional sentences. Kav unites in itself the 

1 Ibid. 8. 14 k&p eyCo /uaprvpu wepl e/mavrov, a\r)dr)S ianv r) fiaprvpia fiov ' even if 
ever. ' 

2 The Hellenistic et fleets corresponds to the French s'il vous plait, Herodas 
7. 70, 8. 6 etc.; so in the N.T. Mt. 17. 4 el 0Aets iroL-qa^ev). 


meanings of 'and 'if (purely conditional), 'if only/ 'if even ; (etsi, 
and so becoming concessive) ; cp. § 78, 7. 1 But d is used in a special 
sense to express the expectation attending an action, Lat. si (forte) 
(classical Greek uses el and edv thus) : it is strengthened by dpa or 
apaye and becomes equivalent to the el in an indirect question, with 
which this el was regarded as identical, and is also extended by the 
addition of ttojs (only found after el and p? in the N.T.) : A. 27. i 2, 
R. 1. 10, 11. 14, Ph. 3. 11. This el may therefore govern the con- 
junctive' Ph. 3. 12 8tc6/<a) el KaTaXd/3(o, cp. supra 1 and (for the 
kindred Vi ^rjirore ' whether perchance ') 3, or the fut. indie. A. 8. 22 
el apa a^eQ^erai. We may further note el [xtj (class.), cl |x*j ti, €KTbs 
el jiVj ' except if/ < except,' < except that.' Of these el p? is generally 
not followed by a verb ; for this we have edv p) (without a verb) in 
Mc. 4. 22 nB, cp. § 77, 13, G. 2. 16 (also uncommon in Attic Greek) ; 

(A. 20. 23) ■ ^ _ 

must then be the case that,' Mc. 6. 5, and with a conj. in 
L. 9. 13 el fJLrj tl wopevOevres rjfjbeis dyopda-ojjuev (all uncials), 'unless 
perhaps we buy' 2 ; eWos el pa) takes the aor. indie, in 1 C. 15. 2, the 
conj. in 14. 5 e/crbs el p) ^lepp^vevr^ (v.l. -wv D*), and stands without 
a verb in 1 Tim. 5. 19. In these connections therefore ei and edv 
are interchanged, and the latter is generally replaced by the former ; 
similarly in the elliptical phrase el 8e pcrj (ye) 'otherwise' el often 
stands where edv would be used if the sentence were written in full, 
while edv 8e p>7 does not appear at all (so Attic). 3 Apart from these 
special combinations (and apart from efoe ... efoe after tW, supra 2) el 
with the conj. is not found (the reading in Ap. 11. 5 Kal el ... OeXrjarrj 
is quite uncertain; perhaps we should write Kav from the KAIH 
of K*). 

7. Relative sentences take the conjunctive in two ways : (1) with 
av in the kind of hypothetical sentence such as ocrrts dv OeXy = edv 
Tts 0e\y, (2) without dv, the relative having a final sense, where this 
construction supplants, though not entirely, the Attic future indica- 
tive. The place of dv is according to the popular manner of the 
time taken by edv, the mss. of course showing very great uncertainty 
about the reading 4 ; the position of the particle is as in Attic 
immediately after the relative, unless perhaps Se or ydp is interposed. 
The negative with the conjunctive is always p7, with the indicative 
it is usually ov, even in cases where firj is used in Attic, cp. § 75, 3 

1 KB,v has also become a particle meaning 'even only,' A. 5. 15, 2 C. 11. 16, 
Clem. Cor. ii. 7. 2, 18. 2 (Attic). a v. App. p. 321. **v. App. p. 332. 

2 Viteau, p. 114 explains the conj. as deliberative, sc. fio6\ei ('unless we 
should buy '). 

3 Kriiger, §65, 5, 12. 

4 *Os Ikv Mt. 5. 19 (ihv om. D*, hv D c ) : 10. 14 5s iav CEF al. (Slp KBDKL) : 
A. 7. 7 <? eap {hv BD) O.T. Also in the London papyrus of Aristotle (ol iav 
col. 12, 31, chap. 30. 2). Cp. § 26, 4. 

§ 6s 7-8.] IN SUB0RD1NA TE CLA USES. 2 1 7 

(similarly et ov, supra 4). Now in constructions with a relative 
sentence, which might be replaced by hypothetical clauses, no state- 
ment is made about anything concrete and actual, but only a general 
statement or supposition; consequently 6s (or 6o-™s, § 50, 1) dv, 
corresponding to kdv, appears to be the regular phrase. So L. 8. 18 
69 yap dv (dv yap tfBLX) €\y, SoOrjcrerat avra}, Kal 6s dv firj e\y, Kal o 
4'xet (no longer hypothetical, the supposition having already been 
made in 6s dv firj i\y) dpOrja-erai diz avrov. But the same saying 
takes the form in Mt. (13. 12) and Mc. (4. 25) of 6s (ocn-ts) yap e'x€6 
(dv € X y in Mc. AE 2 G al, dv ey^ DE*F al.) ... 6s ovk e X u (E*G al. 
ovk <=xi)). The indicative, which also appears in classical Greek, in 
such sentences expresses the definite assumption that such persons 
exist. This assumption occasionally arises directly from the circum- 
stances : L. 9. 50 ( = Mc. 9. 40) 6s yap ovk eWt KaO' vjjlojv, V7rep v[xQ>v 
eo-Ttv, cp. 49. — The same relation exists between the aor. conj. and 
the fut. ind. as between the pres. conj. and pres. ind., and the dis- 
tinction here also frequently appears to be obliterated: Mt. 18. 4 
(ocrrts ra7T€iv(i)(r€t iavrov, whereas in 23. 12 with the same sense the 
future tense may be purposely used with reference to the future of 
the disciples), f). 39 (the reading of nB pa^lfa is not good), 41, 10. 

32 oo-rts 6fjLo\oyrjo-€L answering to 33 60-ns 6' dv dpvyo-yrat (and cp. 
L. 12. 8). Of course the fut. may also be equivalent to the pres. 
with dv, and the latter be equivalent to the fut. (continuous action) : 
L. 17. 31 6s ecrrai kirl rov Scofxaros. The fut. ind. is equally admissible 
after 6s dv as it is after edv, but there is a lack of certain instances of 
this construction: Mc. 8. 35 dwoXeaet kBCD 2 al. (-cry AL al,), L. 17. 

33 do. kAL al. (-o-y BDE al.), 12. 8 opoXoyycreL AB*DB al, A. 7. 7 
O.T. ACD, Barn. 11. 8 6 edv egeXevcrerai nC 1 : while the present 
indie. o7rov dv vwdyei Ap. 14. 4 only rests on the authority of AC and 
must certainly be rejected. The possibility of dv being omitted with 
60-Tts is maintained, but in no case are all the mss. in agreement : 
Mt. 10. 33 (om. dv BL), Ja 2 10 oo-rts ... rypyay (kBC, crei AKLP), 
Trraicry 8e ev evi (kABC, o-et KLP) ; ocroi without dv is found twice in 
Herm. Sim. viii. 11. 3." 

8. (Continuation). — Relative sentences with a final meaning occa- 
sionally show instances of the fut. in the N.T. as in Attic: Mc. 1. 2 = 
Mt. 11. 10, L. 7. 27 dirocrTeXXio rbv ayyeXov jjlov ..., 6s KaracrKevdcret 
(O.T. Malachi 3. 1, but our lxx. has a different text), 1 C. 4. 17 (but 
we also say 'who shall 7 ), but elsewhere the conj. is used, which must 
be explained by assimilation to sentences with ha, which are else- 
where found with the same meaning. Mc. 14. 14 = L. 22. 11 ttov 
kcrrlv to KardXvfia ottov <fcdy(o (D in Mc. has cfydyofiai), = ha (frdya) : 
A. 21. 16 dyovres Trap' w ^evicrOiofJLev Mvdcrojvc, —Trpos Mvacnova ha £ev. 
Trap' avTu>. On the other hand we have ha in 2 C. 12. 7 e866r) jjlol 
o-KoXoxj/ ... ayyeXos oraravd, ha fie KoXa^i^y (Viteau p. 134 f.). — Akin 
to these are the relative sentences which denote a kind of consequence 
resulting from some particular quality or state, and which in Latin 

lrt As &v (TWTokiaovaLv occurs in an inscription in a translation from the Latin, 
Viereck Sermo Graecus senatus Rom. (Gtg. 1888), p. 38. 67, 8. 

a v. App. p. 321. 


take the conjunctive like final relative sentences. In this case we 
have the fut. in L. 7. 4 agtos kcmv w trappy (mid.) tovto, cp. Lat. 
dignus qui with conj.; on the other hand tva is used in Jo. 1. 27 a£tos 
tva Xvo-u (equivalent to Uavhs Xvo-at Mc. 1. 7 etc.: classical Greek takes 
the inf. after agios as well).— In ovk ex°> o TrapaOrjcro) L. 11. 6 the 
future is classical, but o is not, as o, n must have been used (§ 50,^1)^ 
in e X etv rt o irpoo-evkyKTi H. 8. 3 (cp. Clem. Cor. i. 38. 2 eoWev St ov 
Trpoo-avairX^poiOy) the fut. would be used in classical Greek^ cp. 
Phil. 2. 20 ovSeva 4'xco ... oxrris fiepifivrjare.. Here again the infinitive 
would be possible, e X et n irpoo-eveyicai, and that in the N.T. might be 
replaced by tva, Jo. 5. 7, see § 69, 4. 

9. Temporal sentences introduced by ore, orav (o-n-ore only in L. 
6. 3 AEH al, ore kBCD al.), («r«' only in L. 7. 1 with v.l. It^St); 
elsewhere kird is causal in the N.T.), d>s etc. (see § 78, 3), are generally 
only a special class of relative sentences, and exhibit the same con- 
structions. "Ore is found very frequently with the aorist indicative, 
but according to circumstances also takes the imperfect, perfect (1 C. 
13. 11 ore yeyova, but B has eyevoprfv), present (H. 9. 17), and future. 
The last tense usually occurs in phrases like epx^rat copa ore vrpocr- 
Kvvrjo-ere Jo. 4. 21, cp. 23, 5. 25, 28, 16. 25, L. 17. 22 (6Ve eTridvp,rj<r€T€, 
D rov eiriOvpTJo-ai vfias), 2 Tim. 4. 3, which are closely related to 
relative phrases such as ovSev ko~riv KeKaXvpifievov o ovk d7roKaXv<j>drj~ 
o-erai (Mt. 10. 26), 1 (and therefore in the former as in the latter 
instances the place of the fut. may be taken by the infin., and that 
again may be replaced by tva with conj., Jo. 16. 2 epx^at &pa Jva 
oo£#). Hence in accordance with what was said in 8 the conj. (with- 
out <xv) may also take the place of this fut. : L. 13. 35 eW tfgei ore (the 
time when) eiir-qre (so AD etc. ; there is a v.l. ecos av etV^Te, agreeing 
with Mt. 23. 39). Elsewhere ore does not appear with the conj.; a 
further instance of its use with the fut. is R 2. 16 lv rj^epa ore KpiveZ 
(v.l. ev y rj^. KpiveZ : Marcion apparently had neither of these readings, 
but with asyndeton aVoAoyou/zevcov. KpiveZ k.t.A.: this brings the pas- 
sage into order, whereas in other places orav with the conj. is used in 
this way : Mt. 9. 15 eXevcrovTai rjfxepai orav d7rap0rj, cp. Mc. 2. 20, 
for which Luke uses the more awkward, but more correct construc- 
tion (5. 35) eXevcrovrai rjpiepai, /cat (§ 77, 6) 6Vav dirapOrf ..., Tore 
vrjo-revo-ovcriv (kcu om. «C. al.). The use of oVav is more justifiable in 
Mt. 26. 29 (Mc. 14. 25) ews TTJs rjfJLtpas €K€tvr]s orav 7rtvw, since the 
phrase is a periphrasis for Attic 7rptv av. — '-Orav with the indicative 
denotes in the first place indefinite frequency in past time, see § 63, 
7 ; secondly it is used quite incorrectly in Ap. 8. 1 6Vav r/vot£e AC 
(ore nP, and so this author writes elsewhere, 6. 1, 3 etc.; in modern 
Greek 6Vav is 'when' as av is 'if'); besides this it corresponds to 
edV with the indie, (supra 4) in L. 13. 28 orav 6\pecr9e B*DX (-yo-Oe 
AB corr ' al., iS-qre «), Mc. 11. 25 orav (TT-qKere (cp. eav o-rrjKere 1 Th. 3. 
7, but there there is a reason for it [see above 4], which in the 
passage from St. Mark is not the case) A CD al. (-rjre BG al., crrTJre «); 

1 For this Mc. 4. 22 has eav fir] tva (pavepcoO-rj, = perhaps (bare (pavepaidrjvai or in 
better Attic olov cfxxvepudTJvai. 

§ 6s 9-10. § 66. 1.] IN SUBORDINATE CLAUSES. 219 

elsewhere its use is insufficiently attested (L. 11. 2 -n-pocrevxecrOe 
ACH al.; Jo. 7. 27 epx erafc **HX al.; the evidence for di<overe Mc. 13. 
7 is quite insufficient). Cp. Clem. Cor. ii. 12. 1 orav eWat (quotation), 
17. 6, Barn. 15. 5 K. 

10. (Continuation). — Temporal particles and compound expressions 
with the meaning 'until' ('while'), ews, eW ov (orov), Zv 3, axpi(s) 9 
axpis ov, fiexpi(s), p*XP l s °v (§ 78? 3) take the indicative in the regular 
way (the fut. ind. is rare, it is a v.l. in L. 13. 35 [see 9]; the present 
is used instead in eo>s epxofiat Jo. 21. 22, 1 Tim. 4. 13 'until I come' 
[§ 56, 8] = ev (S epxofJLOu L. 19. 13, 1 cp. Mc. 6. 45 KBL ecos mrros a7roAi>€t, 
v.l. a7roXvcrr) <rei, D a-uros Se diroXvei ; but here it may also mean 
' while '). But where they take the conjunctive, ews frequently, and 
€o>9 ov (orov), axpts (ov), /^x/° ts °^ probably always omit the dv : Mc. 
13. 30 /^X/0£S ov (fx. orov B, p>£XP l **> ^^ °v D) touto, 7ravTa yevrjrai, 
1 C. 11. 26 <xx/5t ov (av add. tf c D c al.) eXOrj, E. 4. 13 ^XP L Kara^DJo-w/ie^ 
L. 21. 24 ayjot °v (°v om. A al.) TrXrjpioOcocnv, L. 17. 8 ea>s (av add. 
AK al.) <£ayco, Mc. 14. 32 eW 7rpoo"€V^(ji)fJLaL (D al. -ofJLac), 2 Th. 2. 7 
(ews ai/ FG) ; av is used in Mt. 5. 26 ews av aVoSws and in all other 
passages (Ap. 2. 25 <xx/h ou av r/£a>; the fut. occurs without avin 17. 
17, but B reads rekeo-dwcnv as in 15. 8, 20. 3, 5). We even have dxpi 
fjs rj^kpas yevrjrai L. 1. 20. The reason for this usage of the language, 
which may be traced back a long way (Herodotus, Thucydides and 
others 2 ), is probably to be found in the fact that these sentences 
have a certain affinity with final sentences; sentences with 7r/Hvhave 
this same affinity, in which the omission of av is specially frequent 
in classical authors, but in the N.T. these have been considerably 
supplanted by clauses formed with 4'cos etc. (wptv with the conj 
appears in L. 2. 26 -n-plv y) [fj om. B] av [dv om. AD al.] £877, but K* 
here also has ecos av iSy : 22. 34 7rplv 7} dTrapvrjorr) AT al., but €cos is 
read by **BL, 4'ws ov K al., 4W orov D; with the optative A. 25. 16, 
see § 66, 5). 


1. The optative in principal sentences to denote a practicable 

(see § 63, 5) wish has not yet gone out of use in the N.T. 3 (the negative 
is fjLrj). Mt) ykvoiro occurs in L. 20. 16 and frequently in Paul (to 

express strong aversion, lxx. has the same phrase, Hebr. 1T\^T\). 
1 Th. 5. 23 ayidcrai : Philem. 20 eya> crou dvat/z^v : Mc. 11. 14 fJirjKerc 

1 Viteau, p. 129 f. explains the passages in Lc. and Jo. as meaning ' while I 
go' or 'withdraw myself,' though this explanation cannot be applied to the 
passage in 1 Tim. All other explanations than that given above are completely 
discredited by its use in Hermas Sim. v. 2. 2, ix. 10. 5, 6, 11. 1 iav 8e fxrj 'ikdrj, 
[levels /ued' rj/moov &5e eus epx^rai until he comes (which is a certainty, § 56, 8). 
One must therefore also attribute to ev <J L. 19. 13 with the same present the 
meaning of ' until,' = es 6. 

2 Kriiger, § 54, 17, 3 (dialekt. Synt. 54, 17, 5 and 9). 

3 There are 35 examples in all (Burton, p. 79), all with the exception of 
Philem. 20 in the 3rd person. 


jjbrjSeh <j>dyoL. But there is a strong inclination to use the imperative 
instead of the optative, not only in requests, where the imperative 
has a legitimate place in classical Greek as well, but also in impreca- 
tions, where it takes the place of the classical optative : dvdOepa 'demo 
G-. 1. 6 £, cp. 1 C. 16. 22. 1 The single instance of the pres. opt. is 
A. 8. 20 to dpyvpiov (rov etrj els diroiXecav. The Attic phrases el yap, 
eWe to introduce a wish (§ 63, 5) are not found; d^eXov (vide ibid.) 
is used with a fut. ind. to express a practicable wish in G. 5. 12 
ocfreXov koI aTroKoxf/ovrai ol dvacrrarovvres vpds, ' would that they would 
at once castrate themselves.' 

2. The optative with &v in principal sentences to denote possi- 
bility (modus potentialis) has quite disappeared from the popular 
language; the unique instance of it (besides its use in questions) is A. 
26. 29 (Paul before Agrippa, literary language) ev^ai^v dv (cp. in class. 
Greek Aeschines 1. 159), whereas elsewhere i^ovXofxrjv is used rather 
than fBovXoLfjLriv dv, § 63, 5, and in hypothetical sentences (infra 4) the 
optative (with dv) is at any rate never found in the principal clause. 
In many places where Attic could have used the potential mood, the 
N.T. uses the future indicative : R. 3. 6 kirel ttojs Kpwei 6 Oebs rbv 
Koa-pov ; 1 C. 15. 35 epel tls (although this future is also not un- 
classical, § 61, 1 ; Buttm. p. 188). Instances of the optative also 
occur in Luke in direct questions : irm yap dv hwaip-qv A. 8. 31 and 
rt dv OeXoi ovros Xeyetv 17. 18, cp. infra 3 (also taken from the literary 

3. The optative of indirect speech, (in subordinate clauses), answer- 
ing to the indicative or conjunctive of direct speech, cannot be expected 
to occur with any frequency in the 1ST.T., on account of the decided 
preference which the language in general shows for direct expression. 
Luke alone uses the optative occasionally, and even he never has it 
after on and ws, and not often in indirect questions proper (L. 22. 23 
tls dpa etrj, 8. 9 tls etrj (etrj om. LHr); most of the following instances 
contain dv and therefore answer to the potential mood of the direct 
question (supra 2) 2 : L. 1. 29 Trorairbs dv (add. D) eirj, 62 ri dv OeXot 
KaXeccrOai, 6. II, 8. 9 rt§ €trj, L^r without e'ir], 9. 46, 15. 26 (dv. om. 
«Ar al.; D tl deXei tovto etvai), 18. 32 (dv om. ttABP al.), 22. 23 tls (dtpa) 
€'u] all uncials (only cursives have icrriv or rjv), Acts (2. 12 tl 6eXeL 
tovto elvaL a direct question ; E dv deXot, « OeXoL, readings which in 
an indirect question are inadmissible after XeyovTes), 5. 24 tl dv ykvoiTo 
tovto, 10. 17. Besides this the optative of indirect speech is found 
sporadically after el ' whether' (§ 60, 1 and 6) in A. 17. 27 fy)Telv tov 
Oeov, el dpaye xp-qXafojo-eLav avTov koI evpoLev, cp. 27 12, 39, and after 
pLTjiroTe 'whether perhaps' in L. 3. 15 p-qiroTe etr] infra 4, and lastly 
in a dependent statement of time in indirect speech, A. 25. 16 vide 
infra 5. 

4. While no example of the optative is found in final sentences 
(on E. 1. 17 see § 65, 2, note 1 : 3, note l), a there are some few 

1 The optative in an imprecation of ill only occurs in Me. 11. 14, A. 8. 20. 
In a quotation from Ps. 109. 8, A. 1. 20 uses Xa/3ero> where the lxx. has Xdpot.. 

2 An indirect question may also in classical Greek take every mood of the 
direct question, Kruger, § 54, 6, 6. a v. App. p. 321. 

§ 66. 4-5. § 67- § 68. 1.] IMPERATIVE. INFINITIVE. 2 2l 

instances of it in hypothetical sentences. A. 24. 19 ovs eSec ... Karrj- 
yopelv, el Tt k\oiev ^pos ejie, which would certainly be more correctly 
expressed by el tl ex ovo ~ L or *™ v TL *X wcrt : 20. 16 ecnrevSev yap, el 
Swarbv eurj avTu, ... yeveoSai els 'lepovorakrjfx (indirect; besides el may 
very naturally be understood as meaning ' whether,' cp. 27. 12, 39, 
supra 3) : 1 P. 3. 14 et kou irao-yoire Sid 8iKouocrvvr}V y {jtaKapcoi, 17 
Kpelrrov dya0o7roiovvras, el deXoi to OeXrjjxa tov Oeov, Trao-^eiv 7) kclko- 
Troiovvras, 'if perchance' as in Attic (literary language). Besides these 
we have the formula el tvx ol in St. Paul, 1 C. 14. 10, 15. 37. 

5. In (relative and) temporal sentences there is no further instance 
besides A. 25. 16 (Festus's words) : d-weKpidrp; 6Vt ovk ecrrtv eQos 
Xa/ot£ecr#(u ..., wplv 7) 6 KaTrjyopovjJLevos e^ot ... Xdfiot re, where the 
opt. is rightly used in indirect speech for the conj. of direct speech. 


1. The imperative in the N.T. keeps for the most part within the 
same limits as in the classical language; as in that language it by no 
means expresses simply a command, but also a request or a concession 
(Me. 8. 32 vwdyere, 2 C. 12. 6 ecrroy 8e). a In the last case the impera- 
tive sentence may be equivalent to a concessive sentence : Jo. 2. 1 9 
AwttTe rbv vabv tovtov, koll ev rpurlv 7)p.epai<$ eyepQ avrov, = lav koI 
Xvvrjre; cp. in classical Greek Soph. Ant. 1168 ff. irXovrei re yap /car' 
olkov ... eav 5' dirrj tovtwv to \aipeiv, raXX' eyo> Kairvov cr/aas ovk dv 
7rptacjx7)v (Kiihner-Gerth ii. 3 236). On the encroachment of the 
imperative into the province of the optative see § 66, 1. 

2. The imperative is frequently replaced by the conjunctive, see 
§ 64, 2, by IVa or deXu Iva with conj., ibid. 4, or by the fat. indie, 
ibid. 3 ; cp. Yiteau p. 37. On the substitution of the infinitive for it 
see § 69, 1. 


1. The infinitive is another of those forms which the language at 
a later period gave up, in favour of a periphrasis with ha (mod. 
Greek vd) and the conjunctive, a construction which has already 
been largely developed in the N.T. But the infinitive is still abund- 
antly used beside it by all writers, so that it depends on the discretion 
of the writer on each separate occasion whether he employs the 
synthetic or the analytical expression, though the latter is not in all 
cases open to use. The beginnings ^ of this development may be 
traced not only in the earlier Hellenistic Greek, but also previously 
to that in classical Greek, the only difference being that in the 
classical language the particle used in the periphrasis is not Iva but 
O7rcos, e.g. ireipdo-Oai 6Vco? crwfcoyue^a (Xenoph.) = 7reipdcr6ai o-y^ecrOai, 
whereas later oVus retired more into the background (§ 65, 2) and 
finally disappeared. Cp. also the use of ut in Latin which is so 
frequently interchangeable with the infinitive. 

«v. App. p. 321. 

222 INFINITIVE [§ 68. 2-3. § 69. 1. 

2. From early times there existed in Greek a second analytical 
expression for the infinitive, namely Sn (ws) with the indicative, with 
which cp. the Latin use of quod or quia (late Latin says dico vobis quia 
unus vestrum me traditwrus est). The line of demarcation between the 
old on, which of course reappears in the N.T., and the new ha is 
that the former has an indicative sense, the latter a conjunctive 
(or imperative) sense, while the infinitive is the ovofm pijfxaros (as 
Apollonius calls it) with a neutral meaning between the two others. 
To express actual facts, therefore, particularly those which belong 
to past time, on alone can correctly be used in the periphrasis; on 
the other hand things which may be regarded as a contemplated 
result or one likely to occur, are expressed to a wide extent by ha. 
The intervening province, viz. that which still belongs exclusively to 
the infinitive, is not a large one in the N.T.: under this head, for in- 
stance, comes the rule that Svvao-Oai and peXXeiv are joined exclusively 
with the infinitive. 

3. As the ovofia pharos the infinitive is capable of taking the 
neuter of the article, and this may be declined, and the cases of the 
infinitive so formed may be dependent on different prepositions. In 
this way the sphere of the infinitive has been very largely extended, 
so that it can also represent temporal and causal sentences. The 
N.T. retains this usage, and in particular employs the genitive with 
rov in the most lavish way. 


1. The use of the infinitive in a principal sentence in place of a 
finite verb, with imperative sense and with the subject in the 
nominative 1 , is extremely old and found with special frequency in 
Homer, while in Attic it becomes less prominent. On the other 
hand the later classical language (especially in legal phraseology) 
uses the accusative and infinitive in this sense, or the simple infinitive 
with no subject expressed (Aeyetv ' one must say ' = XtKreov), in which 
case the ideas accessory to the subject appear in the accusative. 2 At 
the same time Attic uses oVcos with the fut. indie, with imperative 
sense. In the N.T. we find in a few passages ha with the conj. 
used in a similar way, see § 64, 4 : a and the infinitive which is equi- 
valent to it twice in St. Paul, R. 12. 15 xaipeiv /xera xoupoVrcoi/, 

kXolUiv fJLtra K\ai6vTto)V, Ph. 3. 1 6 irXrjv els o €<£ Oacrafxe V, T<0 aTJTW 

o-Toixeh. h Where the subject has to be expressed Paul uses ha : rj 8e 
ywr) ha cj>o/3rjraL tov avSpa E. 5. 33. It is very easy here to supply 
a governing verb (a verbum dicendi or XPV> ^")> as ^ ^ s w ^ n the 
(accusative and) infinitive ; the infinitive x a ^P eLV to express a wish 
in epistolary style is clearly elliptical, A. 15. 23, 23. 26. 

1 Homer, II. B. 75 u^ets 5* &\\odei> aXXos epriTTjeiv e-wteGGiv. Aristoph. Ran. 133 
rod' elvai /cat <rv aavrbv. 

2 So in Aristotle, Bonitz Index Aristot. s. v. Infinitivus. ab v. App. p. 321. 


2. Of equal antiquity with the last usage is the use of the infinitive 
to express aim or object, which in Homer has a much wider range 
than in Attic writers, who for the most part only employ it after 
verbs containing the idea of to give, appoint, present, send etc. 
This infinitive, which is equivalent to a final sentence, has again 
become widely prevalent in the N.T.: Mt. 5. 17 ovk rjkdov KaraXvcrai, 
d\Xd TrXrjpwcrcu; 4. 1 6 'Itjo-ovs dvrjX^V *k rr)v eprjjiov viro rov 
7rvevjjLaTos } TreipaorOrjvai viro rov Siaf36Xov \ L. 18. 10 dve/3r]o-av 
7r poo- ev^av 6 at ; A. 10. 33 irdpeo-fiev d/cowat. (Attic would here use 
the future participle which in the N.T. is almost unused, § 61, 4.) 
Of course this infinitive is also found with &&Wt, diroo-TeXXeiv etc. 
as in Attic: Mc. 3. 14 dirocrTeXXrj K-qpvo-veiv (A. 5. 21 direo~TeiXav 
dxOrjvai avrovs is different, the construction being passive, and the 
ace. and inf. being therefore used; cp. inf. 8), Mt. 25. 35 iSwKare fxoi 
<j>ayeiv. Beside the inf. iva also appears again : Mt. 27. 26 7ra/0€oWej/ 
iva o-ravpuOfj ( = Mc. 15. 15, Jo. 19. 16), though in the case of a 
specially close connection of the two verbs in certain definite phrases 
the- infinitive does not admit of being replaced by iva: thus wapa- 
SlSovoll cfrvXdcrcreiv A. 12. 4, 16. 4, 8i86vai (alreiv) cj^ayetv, irieiv passim, 
while on the other hand where the connection is not so close and 
the subordinate clause is of greater length, iva is the natural con- 
struction : though here the infin. may also be used, as in A. 20. 28 
vfids to irvevpia to dytov eOero eirto-Koirovs, 7roifJLa[veiv ttjv eKKXrjortav 
k.t.A., 1. 24 f. l^eAe^o) ... Aa/3etr k.t.X. Moreover with regard to the 
use of iva there is here and in all cases where the infinitive is in 
question a distinction between the different writers : John, Matthew, 
and Mark employ it very freely, Luke much more rarely, especially 
in the Acts, a work which has very few instances of the employment 
of this particle in an unclassical way ; also in James, Peter, and the 
Epistle to the Hebrews it only appears as a strictly final particle.^— 
A third construction with 7rapa8i86vai etc. is els to with the infinitive, 
see § 71, 5 ; the participle, which is also so used in the N.T., offers 
another alternative construction, § 74, 2, and aim or object of any 
kind is very frequently denoted by means of to£ with the infinitive, 
§ 71, 3. 

3. Akin to the infinitive of aim is the infinitive of result, yet so 
far distinguished from it, that if the result is declared to be actual, 
iva according to what has been said has, or at least should have, no 
place (vide infra). The particle used to introduce this infinitive is 
w<tt€ as in classical Greek ; the alternative use of the simple cos is no 
more certainly established for the N.T. than it is for ordinary Attic. 1 
"Qo-Te is also used in the N.T. (as in classical Greek) to introduce 
independent sentences, when it takes the indicative, imperative, or 
hortatory conjunctive (meaning 'therefore'). But where the sentence 
is really dependent, the indicative, which is possible according to 

1 In L. 9. 52 ws is only read by KB ; A. 20. 24 <bs reXetcocrw N*(ews r. N C )B, els 
TeXeiwccu AHLP : re has apparently fallen out before reXetwcrat, and so E has 
ware (cos rb C). In Josephus, however, the traditional text often has a con- 
secutive us (with infin.), Raab de Jos. elocut. (Erlangen, 1890), p. 37. 

a v. App. p. 321. 

224 INFINITIVE AND [§69-3. 

classical usage, is not good N.T. Greek, since even in G. 2. 13 there 
is at any rate a v.l. with the inf., while in Jo. 3. 16 the correct read- 
ing in place of wcrre is 6Vt, which is doubly attested by Chrys. (in 
many passages) and Nonnus, § 78, 6. The infinitive, therefore, is 
used (class.), the subject being usually added in the accusative, 
unless it can be obviously supplied from what has preceded 
(cp. § 72). Consequently the construction with the infinitive has 
a wider range than in Attic ; in a sentence like A. 15. 37 kykvero 
Trapo^vcrjJbos, wcttc diroxupio-Ofjvai, avrovs air' dXXrjXiov, an Attic writer 
would rather have used the indicative, both because there was no close 
connection between the clauses and also on account of the importance 
attaching to the result. But wcrre is by no means used (either in 
the N.T. or in Attic) to introduce merely the actual or the possible 
result, but may also introduce the contemplated result, and so the 
boundary-line which separates these sentences from sentences of 
design almost disappears. 1 In L. 20. 20 ha k-iriXd^iovrai avrov Xoyov, 
coo-re TrapaSovvat avrov rrj dpj(rj rov rjyefjiovos means 'so that they might 
be able' =' in order that they might be able,' and the v.l. els to. for 
coo-re (AT al., cp. supra 2) is quite in accordance with the sense. Cp. 
further L. 4. 29 w.ttc ('in order to/ v.l. els to AC al.) KaraKprjfxvio-ai 
avrov, 9. 52 o)o-T€ ('in order to'; «B d>s, see note 1 on p. 223) eroifxdo-ai 
avrw, Mt. 27. I crvfi/SovXtov eXa/3ov coo-re Oavartoo-ai avrov (D correctly 
explaining the meaning gives iva Oavarcoo-ovoriv avr.). 2 — The inf.. 
without coo-re (also with its subject in the accusative) is used in a 
similar way to express result : A. 5. 3 St a ri eirXrjpcoo-ev 6 o-aravds rrjv 
KapSiav crov, xpevoraorOai ore k.t.X., Ap. 5. 5 kviKrjcrev 6 Xecov ... dvol^ai 
(B 6 dvoiycov) k.t.X., 16. 9 ou fJb€T€v6r]o-av Sovvai avrco §6£av, H. 6. 10 
ov yap aSiKos 6 Oeos, (sc. coo-re) kir iXa 6 ko- 6 ai. The inf. is still more 
freely used in L. 1. 54 (the Magnificat, probably more correctly attri- 
buted [Harnack] to Elisabeth than to Mary) dvreXdfiero 'lo-parjX TraiSus 
avrov, pLvqerOrjvaL eXeovs k.t.A., and in 72 (the Benedictus) wotrjo-ai 
eXeos K.r.X. (the clauses are joined together quite incoherently : this, 
clause is parallel with the accusative of a noun in the preceding 
verse 71 o-corrjpiav e£ kxOptov K.r.X.); cp. 78 f. (inf. after eireo-K^aro). — 
Then again this infinitive of result may be replaced (as elsewhere in 
late writers 3 ) by iva instead of the classical coorre : 1 Jo. 1. 9 wto-ros 

ko~riv Kal SiKaios, iva defarj rds dfxapr ias (cp. supra H. 6. 10), Ap. 9. 20 
(cp. SUpra 16. 9) ov8e \herevoy\o-av, Iva fxrj 7rpoo-KVvrjo-ovcriv, 13. 13 iroiei 
<jr)}ieia fieydXa, iva /cat Trvp iroirj KarafSaiveiv (cp. a similar phrase with 
coo-re in Mt. 24. 24), (Jo. 9. 2 ris TjfJiaprev ..., iva rvcfiXos yevvrjOrj, ' SO 
that:' a better reading, however, is on ... eyewr/Or], § 78, 6), L. 9. 45. 

v '£l(TTe {ecj> cfre) ' on condition that ' does not appear in the N.T. (for which 
iva is used in G. 2. 9) : nor yet wore after a comparative with rj {ve&repos ?} vare 
eldevat), Burton p. 150. On Iva in Mc. 4. 22 see § 65, 9 note. 

2 Here belongs also A. 20. 24, see note 1 on last page, ' in order to fulfil,' if 
wcrre reXeiuxraL is the correct reading. Cp. for (bare in Josephus W. Schmidt de 
Fl. Jos. elocut. (1893) p. 418 ff. 

3 Cp. op. cit. 420 f., where instances from Josephus are given (in all of which,, 
however, the result is merely conceived and not actual). 

§69.3-4.] PERIPHRASIS WITH %va. 2 2$ 

rjv 7rapaK€KaXvjjLfjLevov air avrtov, 'Iva fxrj atcrOoyvrai olvto, 2 C. 1. 17, 
1 Th. 5. 4: Herm. Sim. vii. 2, ix. 1. 10. Cp. Arrian Diss. Epict. 
ii. 2. 16 ovTin fjLupbs rjv, iva /jltj iSy. In these instances the correct 
limits for the use of 1W are already exceeded; cp. Lat. ut. 
(In other passages one can quite well regard tva as final, e.g. in the 
phrase Iva 7rXrjp(i)6rj 'in order to carry out God's determinate 
counsel.') — The so-called infinitive absolute after m, which is 
fairly frequent in Attic, only appears in cos eVos et7retv ' so to say ' 
H. 7. 9 (literary language). 

4. With the infinitive of design or result are included the well- 
known constructions of the infinitive with verbs meaning to wish, 
strive, avoid, ask, summon, make, leave, allow, hinder, be able, have 
power etc., with which in classical Greek oWe is often prefixed to 
the infinitive. An alternative Attic construction with a certain 
number of these verbs is that with oVa^, though it is by no means 
used to the same extent in which Latin ut is used after verbs of this 
kind ; at a later time tva stepped into the place of airtos and obtained 
a more and more extended use, so that in the N.T. with a great 
number of these verbs Iva begins to be interchangeable with the inf., 
and even (especially in writers other than Luke, Paul, and the author 
of Hebrews) to supplant it. The subject of the inf. is often either 
necessarily (as with 8vva[xai) or in most cases (as with OeXoj) identical 
with that of the principal verb, elsewhere it coincides with the 
object of the principal verb (ew) or with the dative which follows it 
(wpoo-Tdoro-co) ; if it requires to be expressly stated, it stands in the 
accusative. ©c'Xw usually takes the (ace. and) inf.: iva in Mt. 7. 12, 
1 0. 14. 5 (OeXa) vfias AaAetv ..., fiaXXov 81 Iva 7rpo$>r)Tevr}Te) and else- 
where. — Bov\o|a(h (as a word belonging to cultured speech) only takes 
the (ace. and) inf., so toA/zw takes inf. (apvovfiai H. 11. 24; also 8oko) 
in fMr) 86^7]Te Xkyuv Mt. 3. 9 * do not let it occur to you to say ' : see 
also 1 C. 11. 16 : gSoge jjlol in Luke e.g. L. 1. 3). — BovXcvojacu inf. and 
tva, Jo. 11. 53 (v.l. crvvefiovX.), 12. i o (in class. Greek inf. and oVus); 
similarly o-vfi/SovXevo/jLac iva Mt. 26. 4 : crvfi/SovXeveiv tlvl 'to advise/ 
with inf. Ap. 3. 18. — c Opi£a> inf. A. 11. 29. — Evvnecnai inf. and !W, 
Jo. 9. 22 ; TrpoTiOe/jLat inf. H. 1. 13. — 'Eiri0v|jioi>, €7rt7ro#a> only take the 
inf. (or ace. and inf. H. 6. 11); but we have r) /aXXido-aro a ha t8rj 
Jo. 8. 56, where the meaning can only be 'to long with ecstasy/ 'to 
rejoice that he should see/ cp. the use of rov and the inf. (§ 71, 3) in 
Herm. Vis. iii. 8. 7 7rept)(aprjs eyevojJLrjv rov tSetv, 10. 6.- — Zijtw (e7rt^r.) 
takes inf.: ova in 1 C. 4. 2, 14. 12. — Ztj\» ('to strive zealously 7 ) takes 
tW in 1 C. 14. 1. — Sirov8dt<» only the (ace. and) inf. (<r7r€v8o> ace. and 
inf. in Herm. Sim. ix. 3. 2; r)ywvl(ovTo Iva Jo. 18. 36, c^iXon/meio-dai 
takes inf. in Paul). — n€ipd£a> ' to try ' takes inf. (the Attic ireip^fxai 
also takes oVus 1 ). — 'Emxcipw (only in Lc.) also takes inf.: and so 
dorKw, only in A. 24. 16. — BXeraTe Iva ('see to it that': Att. Spare 
oVcos) occurs in 1 C. 16. IO. — Alcrxwofwit (eTracorx.), <|> 'to be 
ashamed' or 'afraid to do something/ only the inf. (L. 16. 3 etc.); so 
okvco A. 9. 38. — #vXdcr<ro{Aat tva fJLrj 2. P. 3. 17 (Attic has firj and oVtoS 

1 A. 15. 10 rl Tretpd^ere top deov, iiriQeZvaa £vyov must be similarly explained, 
unless perhaps top 6e6v, which is omitted in some Latin mss., is an interpolation. 

a 6 v. App. p. 321. 

226 INFINITIVE AND [§ 69. 4. 

jirj). — Aeofxai ' to request' takes tW in L. 9. 40, 21. 36, 22. 32, oVws 
in Mt. 9. 38, L. 10, 2, A. 8. 24, elsewhere the inf. (Attic uses inf. 
and oVws). — 'Epwrw tva ('request') occurs in Ma 7. 26 etc., 07rw§ 
in L. 7. 3, 11. 37, A. 23. 20, elsewhere it takes inf. (and ace. of 
the object of *p.) ; so i-repuTco Mt. 16. 1. — IIapaKa\<» 'to beseech,' 
'exhort 7 similarly takes ha in Mt. 14. 36 etc., oVcos in Mt. 8. 34 

(B IVa), A. 25. 2 (cp. Att. 7rapaK€Xevo[xat with inf. and otto)?).- — 

AlTovjxai takes (ace. and) inf. L. 23. 23, A. 3. 14, 7. 46, 13. 28, Jo. 4. 9, 
E. 3. 13: tVa Col. 1. 9 (/cat alrovfi€voL om. B) ; in classical Greek it 
also takes oVcos.— Ilpoo-evxojiai IVa Mc. 14. 35 etc. (6Vws A. 8. 15, inf. 
L. 22. 40; cp. rov with inf. Ja. 5. 17); evx o f mL (a more literary 
word) takes (ace. and) inf. A. 26. 29 etc. — 'Aguo 'to ask' (Luke,, 
literary language) only takes (ace. and) inf. A. 15. 38, 28. 22 (in 
class. Greek also oVws; ha in a forged document in Demosth. 18. 
155); in the sense of 'to count worthy 7 it also takes the inf. (cp. a£ios,, 
infra 5) L. 7. 7 ; Kara^w A. 5. 41. — napaivw ace. of the object and 
inf. (only in A. 27. 22, a literary word). — KeXeuw only takes the (aec. 
and) inf. (being used only by Mt. and Lc); similarly Tdo-o-w A. 15. 2, 
Siardcrcro) (-cro/xat mid.), Trpocrrdcrcro) (rare), eTrtTacraro) (rare); dva/ju- 
fjLvrjo-KU) 2 Tim. 1. 6, direiXov/JLai mid. A. 4. 17, V€V(D A. 24. 10; 
irapayye'Wa) also takes ha Mc. 6. 8 (aVayyeAAco ha Mt. 28. 10); SO 
SiafjiapTvpojJLaL ha 1 Tim. 5. 21 ; ei/reAAo/xat ha Mc. 13. 34; Krjpvcroro) 
ha Mc. 6. 12 ; SicurreXXofJiai ha Mt. 16. 20 (v.l. e7rerL/JL7]crev), Mc. 7. 36 
etc.; Ittitijjlw IVa Mt. 20. 31 (with the two last verbs there is no 
instance of the inf.; in class. Greek verbs of this class except Kckevco- 
show a decided tendency to take oVo)?). — pass, 'receive a 
divine command 7 takes the inf. Mt. 2. 12, A. 10. 22 (in L. 2. 26 the 
inf. expresses an assertion). — 'E|opK^a> ha occurs in Mt. 26. 63 
(op/a£o) or ivopK. with ace. and inf. in 1 Th. 5. 27). — Aiya frequently 
takes tVa, as well as the (ace. and) inf. when it expresses a command 
(ha is used in this way in Ap. 14. 13); similarly Ypa<|>co, e.g. 
ycypairrai ha Mc. 9. 12 (12. 19), and aVocrreAAto ha A. 16. 36, cp. 
supra 2. — Il€i0co ha Mt. 27. 20, elsewhere it takes ace. of the object 
and inf. — IIouo ha is used in Jo. 11. 37, Col. 4. 16, Ap. 3. 9 iroirjo-ay 
avrovs ha rj^ovonv, cp. 13. 12, 15 f. (in 15 ha is wanting in «B); ha 
has more of a final sense in Mc. 3. 14, cp. edrjKa ha Jo. 15. 16 (ttoio) 
Ttva with inf. occurs in L. 5. 34 etc. ; classical Greek has also occa- 
sionally iroidv oTruys ' to cause that 7 ) ; Troieh with ace. and inf. occurs 
in Mc. 1. 17 (Mt. 4. 19 double ace), L. 5. 34 etc.; 8i86vai (a Hebrew 
usage) is similarly used in A. 10. 40, 14. 3, 2. 27 O.T. — 'Ayyapexxa ha 
Mt. 27. 32 (no instance of the inf.; oo-ns o-e dyyapevoret [D -pevec] 
/xlXlov lv Mt. 5. 41). — 'Ew rtva only takes inf.; the commoner a^t^/xt 
' let 7 also takes ha, Mc. 11. 16 ; KaTa\diru> nvd takes the inf. L. 10. 40 
(not so much an inf. of aim as of result, cp. Horn. II. P. 151. — 'Ein/rpcVc* 
Tti/t only takes the inf.; similarly kwAi'oo nvd (with this the verb 
Attic [iT} is not annexed to the simple inf., §§ 71, 3 ; 75, 4). — 'To be 
able, 7 'to understand 7 etc. only take the inf.: hvvapiai (Warco Paul), 
l(T)(y(o (fcaTicTYjxo L. 21. 36 «B al., V.l. Kara^ioidrjre ; e£to-;(. E. 3. 18), 
%\<o Mt. 18. 25 (in the N.T. it also has the meaning 'to have to, 7 'be 
obliged to/ L. 12. 50 /3a7TT«r/xa e^(o fiairTio-drivai, cp. Clem. Horn. 

§69.4-5.] PERIPHRASIS WITH Iv*. 227 

i. 17, xii. 8), otSaMt. 7. 11 etc., yti/wo-Kw 'Mt/ 16. 3; further fiavOdva) 
1 Tim. 5. 4 etc., 7rai8evofiai pass. 1. 20; wpofieXerco L. 21. 14, SiSacncco 
11. I (7rapa\afJi/3dvco Mc. 7. 4), Sei/cvvco A. 10. 28, viroSeiKvvo) Mt. 3. 7. 

— The inf. is likewise used with 64>€i\<o, pAXa, cfoOa, 4>i\« Mt. 6. 5 
(23. 6 f.), &p X o| (never with the participle in N.T., cp. § 73, 4) 1 , 

7rpo<rTt0€|xav (a Hebraism, t^Oi 1 with £ and inf.) * continue to do/ 
'repeat' L. 20. 11, A. 12. 3 (lxx. also uses the active), KivSwevm 

A. 19. 27, 40, 7rpoor7roiovfJLaL L. 24. 28, lirtXavOdvojxtti 'forget to do 7 

Mt. 16. 5 = Mc. 8. 14 (also in Attic), and its opposite irpoo-e'xciv (not 
so used in Att.) Mt. 6. 1 (with wa Barn. 16. 8). The construction 
with the inf. is very widely extended in individual instances, and 
used with far greater freedom than in Attic. Thus we have 
8ia/3Xe\peLS eK/3aXeiv Mt. 7. 5, L. 6. 42; SoKifidfra 'approve/ ov So/c. 
'disdain' 1 Th. 2. 4, E. 1. 28 (in Att. with inf. of opinion), evSoKay 
Col. 1. 19 with (ace. and) inf. (Polyb. i. 8. 4), <rvvev8. with inf. 
1 C. 7. 12 (ace. and inf. in Herm. Sim. v. 2. 11, Iva ibid. 8). H. 11. 5 
ov\ eavrbv eSo^acrev yevqOrjvai dpx^epea, like d^iovv. A. 25. 21 rov 
UavXov iTTLKaXeo-ajjievov r-qprjOfjvai avrov, like verbs of asking (the /3 
text reads differently). A. 15. 14 eweo-Kexparo Xafteiv, cp. L. 1. 25 
€7T€i8ev dfaXecv. A. 14. 15 evayyeXi^ofxevoL vfids eirLcrrpe^etv (D is 
different, using oVus), 1 7. 2 1 els ovSev erepov rjVKatpovv rj Xeyecv re ... 
Katvorepov (there is no need to supply els rb before the inf., since 
evKCLipelv takes the inf. in Lucian Amor. 33). E,. 1. 10 evoSw^o-o/xat 
eXOetv, like Svvapiai. 1 Th. 2. 2 (E. 6. 20) 7rapprj(Tid(opLat (like 
roA/xw). Mc. 5. 32 irepieftXeTrero ISetv, 14. 8 irpoeXafSev pLvplcrai (cp. 
the Attic use of </>#avco with partic. or inf., 7rpocj>0do-r) fSaXelv Clem. 
Cor. ii. 8. 2). A. 16. 10 tt poor KeKXTjr at fjfxas evayyeXicracrdaL avrovs. 
H. 11. 8 vwrjKovcrev e^eXOeiv. Tit. 3. 8 <fipovTi£cocrLV irpota-rao-Oai. 
L. 12. 45 xp 0V ^C €t epxeo-Oai. We have the same construction with 
longer phrases : ridevai (riOeo-Qai) ev rrj Kap8[a, (tw TrvevpLart) ' to 
resolve/ 'to think of 7 (a Hebraism) L. 21. 14, A. 19. 21, rjs Sirjvotgev 
rrjv KapStav (a Hebraism) irpoo-kyew A. 16. 14 (cp. the same phrase 
with rov and inf. in L. 24. 45) ; the following take cva, povXrj eyevero 
A. 27. 42, OeXrjfjid eo-TLv Mt. 15. 14 etc.: eyevero opfjafj A. 14. 5 takes 
the inf.; cp. L. 2. 1, Jo. 13. 2, 34, A. 17. 15, E. 3. 8 etc. 

5. A similar relation between the infinitive and tVa exists in the 
case of a series of impersonal expressions, whether they consist of a 
simple verb or combinations of early with an adj., such as Set, 
(TVfJLcftepei, e^ecrrfc, eyevero, Svvarov ecrrtv, dpecrrov eanv : also in the case 
of combinations of ka-riv with a substantive such as copa evr'iv, Kaipos 
eo~riv, and in the case of adjectives like Swaros &£los Ikwos eVot/xo? 
used as predicates (with eo-rl) or as attributes. The infinitive might 
here be said to express the direction or goal. Equivalent to these 
are combinations like e^ovo-cav e^co, xp eiav *X W e ^ c - ^ n Attic oVcos is 
excluded with expressions of this kind, ucrre is not entirely excluded 
(ecrnv coo-re ' it is possible that ' Sophocles) ; in the N.T. tva may be 

1 Very common in Mt., Mc, Lc, often used almost superfluously, as inMc 
1. 45 -ffpZaro Ktiptioraeiv which is hardly distinguishable from iK^pvcro-ev. 

22% INFINITIVE AND [§ 69. 5. 

used in all cases, except where a fact is stated to have taken place, 
as in the common phrase eyevero (cp. § 72, 5) and its classical equi- 
valent o-we^rj (only in A. 21. 35), or where the close connection of 
the word with the inf. has become quite established, as with Set 1 and 
e^ecrri (with the latter cp. eXevOepa ecrrlv ya^Orjvai 1 0. 7. 39). 
2v|A(f>€p€i Iva occurs in Mt. 5. 29 f, 18. 6 etc., besides (ace. and) inf. 
'ApK€Tov (sc. ko-TLv) iva yevrjrai Mt. 10. 2$ (differing from dpKova-LV iva ' 
Jo. 6. 7, where the result is stated, = coo-re) ; on the other hand the 
inf. is used in 1 P. 4. 3 dpKeros io-rcv 6 TrapeXrjXvdcbs XP° V0S • • • Ko.reip- 
ydcrOai. Awarov icrri (A. 2. 24 with ace. and inf.) and Svvaros eo~ri 
(somewhat more frequent) only take the inf. like § Ovk elpl 
licavbs tVa is used in Mt. 8. 8, elsewhere the inf. 2 ; ovk dpi djios IW 
Jo. 1. 27 (often with inf.; with rov and inf. 1 C. 16. 4, see § 71, 3; 
with a relative sentence L. 7. 4, § 65, 8). Sw^0€id ecrnv Iva Jo. 18. 39; 
epXerai (rj) <3pa iva Jo. 12. 23, 13. 1, 16. 2, 32 (ace. and inf. as in 
Attic in K. 13. 11; (6) Kcupos [sc. ecrri\ rov dp^acrOai rb Kpipa 
1 P. 4. 17 ; cp. § 71, 3 3 ; elsewhere these words take ore or ev #, 
ecrrai k. ore ... dve^ovrai 2 Tim. 4. 3, ep\erai wpa ev y ... aKovcroaxrfci/ 
Jo. 5. 25, where the prediction is more definite, whereas Iva or the 
inf. states the tendency or drift of the impending event). Xpetav 4'xto 
'Iva Jo. 2. 25, 16. 30, 1 Jo. 2. 27 ; elsewhere it takes inf., Mt. 3. 14 
etc., Jo. 13. 10 (with vi\pacrOai 9 the two verbs having the same subject, 
while in the iva passages a new subject is introduced 4 ). 'Egovo-iav 
4'xw takes inf. H. 13. 10, Ap. 11. 6; e866rj e^ovo-la inf. ibid. 13. 5 
(with coott€ Mt. 10. I, vide sup. 3) ; Sore rr)v e^ovcriav ravrrrv Iva A. 8. 
19. With iva must also be quoted 1 C. 4. 3 ipol els eXd^ icrrov ecrnv 
Iva. With ephv f3pu>fjLa ecrnv 'Iva Jo. 4. 34 cp. the passages quoted below 
in 6. "Av8pa)7rov ovk eyo> Iva /3dXrj /xe Jo. 5. 7, instead of 6s j3aXel or 
the Attic rov /SaXovvra, cp. § 65, 8. — Again ha is used after a com- 
parative with 7] : L. 17. 2 XvcnreXei avrco el irepiKeirai ... r) IVa cr/cav- 
SaXtcrr), 1 C. 9. 15 KaXov fioi p.dXXov diroOaveiv, rj rb Kav\rj/JLd pbov Iva 
ns Kevuo-ei (n*BD* have the bad reading ovBeh for tVa n<$). — The 
infinitive is freely used in some special phrases such as in G. 5. 3 
6<fieiXerrjS ecrrlv ( = ofyelXei) iroirjcrai^ H. 4. 1 KaraXenropievrjs eirayyeXlas 
elcreXOeiv (cp. diroXeiirerai, diroKeirai with inf. in 4. 6, 9. 27): a classical 
use is 5. 11 Xoyos SvcreppLrjvevros Xeyeiv (like XevKbs I8etv etc.; elsewhere 
not used in N.T.) ; another very classical use occurs in H. 9. 5 ovk 
ecrnv vvv Xeyeiv (Viteau p. 251). A peculiar use of the inf. is 6 
e'xwv &ra aKoveiv aKovero) Mc. 4. 9, L. 14. 35 and elsewhere (to hear, 
Svvdpieva aKoveiv), cp. <5ra rov p^r) aKoveiv E-. 11. 8 such ears that they 
cannot hear, §71, 3. 

1 Still Barn. 5. 13 has £5et iva irdOrj. 

2 Cp. iroXXd, juLLKpbv Xeiiret. (is wanting) with iva and with inf. in Herm. Vis. 
iii. 1. 9, Sim. ix. 9. 4. 

3 A peculiar instance is Ap. 11. 18 rjkdev 6 icaipbs t&v veKp&v Kpidrjvai Kal douvai 
k.t.X., = tva KpiduxTLv ol veKpol Kal 8$s k.t.X.; cp. R. 9. 21 exec i^ovaiav rod irrjXov, 

TTOlTjaai K.T.X. 

4 Accordingly in Jo. 16. 30 the ordinary reading ov xpzLav fyus iva rls ae 
ipurq. is preferable to the very tempting iva nva ipcoras of the Lewis Syriac. 
1 Th. 4. 9 ov xpetW 'ixo/J-ev ypd<j>eiv vpuv « C D* al., I'^ere . . . ypacpeiv «*AD C al! 
incorrectly: a third reading which is also grammatically correct is 2%ere ..". 
ypdcpecrOac ( = 5. 1) H al. 

§ 6g. 6-8.] PERIPHRASIS WITH %va. 229 

6. Closely related to some of the expressions quoted under 4 and 
5 is the explanatory (accusative and) infinitive, preceded by a 
demonstrative; the demonstrative may also be omitted without 
rendering the construction with the infinitive thereby impossible. 
"Iva may here also take the place of the infinitive. Ja. 1. 27 Oprjo-Keia 
KaOapa . . . avrrj Zcttiv, 67r io~K€7TT€or6 at opcfravovs, A. 15. 28 /z^Sei/ 7r\kov 
v/jllv €7UTid€cr6aL ffdpos irXr)v tovtojv tojv ZirdvayKes, dirkxtvOai k.t.X., 
1 Th. 4. 3 tovto yap ko-riv to OZXrjp.a tov Oeov, 6 dyiao-pLos iijuw, 
a7T€xeor(9at fyias k.t.A., E. 3. 8 (cp. without a demonstr. and with ha 
1 C. 16. 12). With ha: L. 1. 43 kill iroOev pot tovto, ha 'ZXOy r) 
fjLTjTrjp tov Kvplov fiov 7T/oo? €/x€ (here somewhat irregular, as the clause 
introduced by ha is already a fact), Jo. 15. 8 Zv tovtoj Z8ogdo-$r) 6 
iraTrip fxov, Iva Kapirov ttoXvv cfreprjTe, — Zv rw (pepetv vfias (conception 
and wish, not actual fact), a l Jo. 5. 3 avTrj yap Zo~tlv r) dydrrr] tov deov, 
ha Tots ZvtoXols avTov T-qptifjiev. It is specially frequent in John, see 
further 6. 39, 17. 3, 1 Jo. 3. 11, 23, 4. 21, 2 Jo. 6 (without a 
demonstr. Jo. 4. 34, supra 5); akin to this use are 1 Jo. 3. 1 (iroTcnrfiv 
dydrzrrv ... ha), 1 C. 9. 18 (tis fiov ZcttIv 6 pLioSos ; ha). A further 
noteworthy instance is Jo. 15. 13 fiel^ova tcujttjs dydir-qv ovSels *x € h 
ha Tr)v ipvxqv avTov Off ( = tov Oehat), cp. 3 Jo. 4. But if the 
epexegetical phrase consists of facts, John uses not ha but 6tl (§ 70, 
3): 1 Jo. 3. 1 6 Zv tovto) ZyvojKafiev Trjv aydinqv, otl Zk€lvos . . . rrjv 
xpvx^v avTov eOr]K€v, or again if the fact is only supposed to take 
place, Zdv or oTav is used : 1 Jo. 2. 3 Zv tovtoj ytvaxrKo/zev otl ..., lav 
T7?/)w/*€i/, 5. 2 Zv r. y. otl ..., orav ay air (JopLev. 

7. The infinitive with irpfo (or 7rplv r) which is not such good 
Attic) belongs, generally speaking, to this series of infinitives, which 
correspond to a conjunctive and not to an indicative : although ha 
cannot be introduced in this case, and the conjunctive, where it is 
used, is sharply distinguished from the infinitive, viz. the conjunctive 
stands after a negative principal sentence, the infin. after a positive 
sentence (as in Att.). 1 Mt. 1. 18 irplv r) o-weXOdv avTovs, tvpeOrj k.t.X., 
26. (34, see below note 2), 75 irph (r) is added by A in ver. 75 ; L. 22. 6 1 
-q add. B; Mc. 14. 30 rj om. tfD, 72 no mss. have rj) aXeKTopa (jxavrjo-ai 
Tpls aTrapvrjo-rj fie, Jo. 4. 49, 8. 58, 2 14. 29, A. 2. 20 O.T., 7. 2 (never 
in the Epistles). In a similar way to this irpiv, 7rpb tov with the inf. 
may also be used, e.g. in Mt. 6. 8, L. 2. 21, G. 2. 12, 3. 23, especially 
in the case of a fact which is regarded as really taking place at a 
subsequent time, though irpiv is not excluded in this case, A. 7. 2, 
Jo. 8. 58 (so in Attic). Hpiv with the conj. (or optat. of indirect 
speech, see § 66, 5) after a negative principal sentence is found only 
in Luke, see § 65, 10. 

8. With regard to the voice of the verb, it is noticeable that after 

3 The conj. (without &v) is used after a positive principal sentence, and there- 
fore incorrectly, in Herm. Sim. v. 7. 3. 

2 D and the Latin have irplv 'AppaafjL without the inf. yevecrOcu, so that irpiv is 
used as a preposition (with the gen.), like 2ws with the gen., § 40, 6. Cp. 
Stephanus irpiv (irplv &pa$ Pindar. Pyth. 4. 43 ; often in Josephus ; Arrian al. ), 
W. Schmidt de Joseph, eloc. 395 .* **v. App. p. 332. « v. App. p. 321. 

230 INFIN. AND PERIPHRASIS WITH I'va. [§ 69. 8. § 70. 1-2. 

verbs of commanding the inf. pass, is used instead of the inf. act. in 
a manner that is more characteristic of Latin than of classical Greek, 
if it is necessary to state that something is to be done to a person, 
without mentioning the agent. 1 Mt. 18. 25 e/ceAewei/ avrov TrpaOrjvat, 
14. 19 (see below), A. 23. 3 KeXeveis fxe rvwreo-Oat, and so frequently 
with KeXevetv in Mt. and Lc. (who alone use this verb, supra 4). On 

the other hand we have A. 23. 10 eKeXevcre to <rTpa.Tevji.a dpirdo-ai avrov 
(16. 22 eKtXevov pa/38i^€iv is contrary to the above rule). A. 5. 21 
dir€o-T€i\av dxOrjvat avrovs, 22. 24 cfcras fJidcrn^tv averager Oat avrov, 
Mc. 6. 27 4ir€Ta|€V eveyOrjvai (tfBCA Ivey/cat) rrjv K€<f>aXr)v avrov (but 
in 6. 39 eirkra^ev avrois dvaKXivai irdvras ; male dvaKXtOrjvai tfB* etc., 
from Mt. 14. 19, where the persons who carry out the command are 
not mentioned), A. 24. 23 (Stara^dfievos), L. 8. 55 (Sieragev), L. I9.15 
(ttirev), A. 25. 21 (ZTTLKaXeo-afiivov), 1 Th. 5. 27 ([lv]op/a£(o), 2 A. 13. 28 
(rjr-qo-avro, cp. Clem. Cor. i. 55. 4). 


1. The complement of verbs of (perceiving), believing, (showing), 
saying, in respect of the purport of the idea or communication in 
question, is in classical Greek rendered to a great extent by the 
infinitive, the subject of which, if identical with that of the governing 
verb, is not expressed, while in other cases it is placed in the 
accusative. The participle is an alternative construction for the 
infinitive, see § 73, 5 ; in addition to these constructions, the com- 
plement of verbs of perceiving, showing, saying (not of verbs of 
believing) is often formed by means of an indirect question, and a 
development of this use is the construction with on (strictly o,rt an 
indirect interrogative particle), which is allowable with these same 
verbs (and therefore not with verbs of believing). Lastly, as a less 
definitely 3 analytical expression, m with a finite verb is also in use 
with verbs of saying, hearing etc. 

2. In the N.T. the infinitive has not indeed gone out of use in 
connection with these verbs, but it has taken quite a subordinate 
place, while the prevailing construction is that with on. The in- 
direct question is kept within its proper limits: m is found almost 
exclusively in Luke and Paul and preserves more or less clearly its 
proper meaning of 'how/ though it is already becoming interchange- 
able with 7rws, which in late Greek assumes more and more the 

1 And even where the agent is mentioned in Herm. Sim. ix. 8. 3 etceXevae Sid 
twv TTapOevttv airevexOrivai. 

2 Buttm. 236 f., who rightly rejects the following readings, Mc. 5. 43 dovvat, 
(D) instead of dodrjvai, 6. 27 eveyicai (tfBCA) instead of ivexOwai, A. 22. 24 ave- 
ra$€Lv (D*) instead of -eadai, and also in Mc. 10. 49 prefers elirev avrov <f>wvr}$7)vaL 
(ADX al.) to elirev <puvr)<rare avrbv (KBCLA). In Mc. S. 7 the MSS. are divided 
between elirev (i/ce\evcrev of D is wrong) irapaBetvai - irapariQevai - iraparedrjvai (A, 
cp. apponi vulg. it.) - irapedrjicev (K*, without elirev) ; iraparedijvai is the reading 
commended by the usage of the language (Buttm.). 

3 Riemann Revue de philol. N.S. vi. 73. 


meaning of on. 1 The unclassical combination ws on ( = this on 2 ). 
occurs apparently three times in Paul. a — Again, in the N.T. the use, 
which is so largely developed in classical Greek, of the indirect form 
of speech with the (ace. and) infinitive, is almost entirely wanting ; 
it may be said that Luke is the only writer who uses it at any 
length, and even he very quickly passes over into the direct form, 
see A. 25. 4 f., 1. 4.— Details : verbs of perceiving (recognizing and 
knowing) with the ace. and inf. 'Akovciv Jo. 12. 18, 1 C. 11. 18 (i.e. 
to receive a communication [so in classical Greek] ; elsewhere it takes 
the participle and more commonly on), (©cwpetv and fiXkireiv take 
on Mc. 16. 4 etc.; not the inf., but part., § 73, 5.) TwAo-km takes 
ace. and inf. in H. 10. 34 (in classical Greek only with the meaning 
Ho pass judgment,' which may also be adopted in this passage); the 
prevailing construction is on, cp. Participles § 73, 5. ElSevatin L. 4. 
41, 1 P. 5. 9 (Clem. Cor. i. 43. 6, 62. 3) takes ace. and inf. (as 
occasionally in class. Greek), elsewhere the partic. and usually on 
(us), which is also the usual construction with kir lo-ravO at. Ka/ra- 
XajjLpdv€<r0ai ' to recognize/ ' find ' (post-classical ; cp. Att. -veiv) takes 
ace. and inf. in A. 25. 25 ; elsewhere on (4. i3^1°- 34)-— T ° believe 
etc. contrary to Attic usage very largely take on : Sokciv ' to think ? 
takes (ace. and) inf. in L. 8. 18, 24. 37, A. 12. 9, Jo. 5. 39, 16. 2, 

2 C. 11. 16 etc., on in Mt. 6. 7 etc. (so almost always except in Lc. 
and Paul; in Mc. 6. 49 the text is doubtful); but SoKeiv 'to 
seem' only takes inf. (Lc, Paul, Hebrews; Herm. Sim. ix. 5. 1 
iSoKei jjlol impers. with ace. and inf.), similarly eSo^e \xoi 'it seemed 
good to me' (only in Lc, literary language, § 69, 4). 'EXiri^iv takes 
inf. in L. 6. 34, R. 15. 24 and elsewhere in Lc. and Paul (the fut. 
inf. in A. 26. 7 B, elsewhere the aorist, § 61, 3), and in 2 Jo. 12, 

3 Jo. 14; on in A. 24. 26, 2 C. 1. 13 and elsewhere in Lc and Paul. 
*'Ex€iv nva on ' to reckon ' (Lat. habere, a Latinism, cp. § 34, 5) Mc 

11. 32 (D rjSeurav). 'EtyeurOcu takes ace and inf. in Ph. 3. 8 (for the 
double ace § 34, 5). Kptveiv, 'to decide that something is/ takes ace and 
inf. in A. 16. 15, tovto on in 2 C. 5. 15 ; 'to decide that something 
should be' ('to choose/ 'conclude') takes inf. in A. 15. 19, 1 C. 2. 2, 
ace and inf. in A. 25. 25 (rov with inf. in 27. 1 ; this construction 
like e'6o£e fjioi belongs to the same category as fiovXecrdai, KeXemiv etc, 
§ 69, 4). Ao-ytj;€(r9cxi, 'to decide/ takes (ace and) inf. in R 3. 28, 
14. 14, 2 C. 11. 5, Ph. 3. 13; on in R 8. 18, Jo. 11. 50, H. 11. 19 
(in John and Hebr. 'to reflect/ 'say to oneself,' as in 2 C. 10. 11; 
with this meaning on is not unclassical). Noetv ace and inf. H. 11. 3; 
on Mt. 15. 17 etc. (both unclassical). Nojui^iv takes (ace and) inf. 
in L. 2. 44 and elsewhere in Lc. and Paul (iv6/ju£ov solebant with 
inf. A. 16. 13 ?); on in Mt. 5. 17 etc., A. 21. 29 (the ace and inf. 

1 '0$ is used in Mc. 12. 26 after av ay Lv&vKeiv (v.l. irCos), L. 6. 4 {avay. ; v.l. irQs, 
om. BD) L. 8. 47 {dwayyeWetv ; D drt), 23. 55 {deaadai), 24. 6 {nvqadrivcu ; D oaa), 
24. 35 (itjrjyelcrdcu ; D otl), A. 10. 28 [otdare, <bs ade/Mrov), 38 (iirlaTacrdaL ; J) reads 
differently), 20. 20 (eiricrT.; irCbs is used previously in verse 18), R. 1. 9 and Ph. 
1. 8 and 1 Th. 2. 10 (fjuxprvs) and in a few passages elsewhere. IIws (Hatzidakis 
Einl. in d. ngr. Gramm. 19) occurs in Mt. 12. 4 after avayivdxrKeiv, Mc. 12. 41 
with edeebpeL, L. 14. 7 with iirexw, A. 11. 13 dir-nyyeWev, 1 Th. 1 9. Barn. 14. 
6, Clem. Cor. i. 19. 3, 21. 3, 34. 5, 37. 2, 56. 16. 

2 See Sophocles Lex. s.v. tls (Clem. Horn. i. 7). a v. App. p. 321. 


would have been ambiguous). 1 OfarOai (ace. and) inf. Jo. 21. 25 
(last verse of the Gospel), Ph. 1. 17; on Ja. 1. 7. ncteeo-Oai (ace. 
and) inf. L. 20. 6, A. 26. 26 (apparently with on H. 13. 18; 
there is a better v.l. ireiroiOapiev, see § 58, 2) ; similarly the (ace. 
and) inf. is used with Treiroidkvai E. 2. 19, 2 C. 10. 7; 6Vt in E. 8. 38 
etc.; Ph. 2. 24 etc. Hurrefotv takes inf. in A. 15. 11, E. 14. 2 ; on 
passim. IIpoo-SoKav takes (ace. and) inf. A. 3. 5 (aor. inf.), 28. 6 (with 
fieXXeiv ir'i fiir pacrO 'at). 'YtroKpCvecrQai ace. and inf. L. 20. 20. 'YiroXap,- 
pdveiv takes on in L. 7. 43 (this is also classical, Plato Apol. 35 a). 
c Yirovo€iv ace. and inf. A. 13. 25, 27. 27. On the whole, therefore, 
the use of the infinitive with verbs of believing is, with some doubt- 
ful exceptions, limited to Lc. and Paul (Hebrews), being a ' remnant 
of the literary language (Viteau, p. 52). 

3. Verbs of saying, showing etc. take on with a finite verb to a 
very large extent, as do also the equivalent expressions such as 
|xdpTvpa eiriKaXovixai rbv Oeov 2 0. 1. 23, avrr] io-rlv rj p,apTvpia 1 Jo. 5. 
II, icrrlv avrrj r} ayyeXia 1 Jo. 1. 5, tVa 7r\7]pu)6fj 6 Xo-yos Jo. 15. 25,. 
avkfiv) <|>dcris A. 21. 31, iv ovopan Me. 9. 41 ('for the reason that, 
' on the ground that ') ; further, adjectives like SrjXov (sc. kcrrl) take 
this construction. Special mention may be made of <f>dvai on 1 C. 
10. 19, 15. 50 (with ace. and inf. in E. 3. 8), whereas in classical 
Greek this verb hardly ever takes on (any more than it takes an 
indirect question). AcOutv on is rare, H. 11. 18, this verb never 
takes ace. and inf.; the commoner construction is iXdXrjo-ev Xkymv 
like tKpagev Xeyoiv, aTreKpiOrj Xkyuv etc., the usual phrase formed on 

the model of the Hebrew (*V/2$h '"Q'T), cp. § 74, 3. Kpdfav, (&7ro)<l>0ey- 
yto-Qai, <f>(i)vdv never take on or ace. and inf., diroKpCvetrGcu only in Lc. 
(20. 7 with inf., A. 25. 4 ace. and inf., 25. 16 on), podv only in A. 25. 24 
takes the inf. 'O^vvciv on occurs in Mt. 26. 74, Ap. 10. 6 (unclassical; 
it takes the aor. inf. in A. 2. 30, the fut. inf. as in class. Greek in 
H. 3. 18); on is also used with other expressions of asseveration 
such as ecrnv aXrjQeLa rov XpicrTOv kv k/xoL, on 2 C. 11. 10, cp. (Clem. 
Cor. i. 58. 2), G. 1. 20, E. 14. 11, 2 C. 1. 23 (vide supra). The use 
of the (ace. and) inf., as compared with that of 6Vt, is seldom found 
in writers other than Lc. and Paul : \4ytw takes ace. and inf. in Mt. 
16. 13, 15, 22. 23 = Mc. 8. 27, 29, 12. 18, Jo. 12. 29 etc., Ka/raKpivciv 
in Mc. 14. 64, ImfjiapTvpctv in 1 P. 5. 12, kirayyiWto-Qai takes the inf. in 
Me. 14. 11, A. 7. 5 ; in Lc. and Paul the following verbs also take 
this construction, dirayykXXeiv A. 12. 14, irpoKaTayye'Mciv 3. 18, dirap- 
V€ur6ai L. 22. 34, 8u<rxvpt£€(r0ai A. 12. 15, jiaprupctv 10. 43, irpoaiTido-Bat 

E. 3. 9, <riinaiv€iv A. 11. 28, xpTi^T^^v to predict L. 2. 26 ; while the 
on used with irapayykXXeu/ to command in 2 Th. 3. 10 is a on 
recitativum (infra 4). — Verbs of showing (which may be regarded as 
the causatives of verbs of perceiving) in Attic Greek, in cases where 
on is not used, generally express the complement by means of the 

1 Thuc. iii. 88 is quite wrongly adduced as an instance of vo^eiv otl. 

2 R. 14. 2 irKTTeveL <payelv ttolvtcl. HiareijeLi' here therefore means not 'believe,* 
but to have confidence and dare. 

§ 70. 3-5. § 7i. 1-2.] INFINITIVE WITH ARTICLE. 233 

participle ($€lkvvvoll, SrjXovv, also cfravepos el/jLL etc.; occasionally also 
dwayytWetv and the like). In the N.T. we find iTnSeiKvvvai A. 18. 
28 and (fyAovv H. 9. 8 with ace. and inf. (which is not contrary to 
Attic usage), 1 viroSeiKvuvaL A. 20. 35 and <j>av€povo-9ai pass. 2 0. 3. 3, 
1 Jo. 2. 19 with on (cfiavepovv takes ace. and inf. in Barn. 5. 9); so 
SrjXov (7rp68rjXov) on 1 C. 15. 27, G. 3. 11, H. 7. 14; instances of the 
use of the participle are entirely wanting. 

4. By far the most ordinary form of the complement of verbs of 
saying is that of direct speech, which may be introduced by on (the 
so-called on recitativum), for which see § 79, 12. An indirect state- 
ment after verbs of perceiving and believing is also assimilated to the 
direct statement so far as the tense is concerned, see §§ 56, 9; 57, 6 ; 
59, 6 ; 60, 2. "On is used quite irregularly with the ace. and inf. 
after Stupe* in A. 27. 10; in A. 14. 22 we can more readily tolerate 
/cat on (equivalent to Xkyovns on) with a finite verb following 
irapaKaXdv with an infinitive. 

5. The very common use in the classical language of dv with the 
infinitive ( = aV with indie, or optat. of direct speech) is entirely 
absent from the N.T. (wo-dv with the inf. is not connected with this 
use, § 78, 1). 


1. The article with an infinitive strictly has the same (anaphoric) 
meaning which it has with a noun; but there is this difference 
between the two, that the infinitive takes no declension forms, and 
consequently the article has to be used, especially in all instances 
where the case of the infinitive requires expression, without regard 
to its proper meaning and merely to make the sense intelligible. 
The use of the infinitive accompanied by the article in all four cases, 
and also in dependence on the different prepositions, became more 
and more extended in Greek; consequently the N.T. shows a great 
abundance of usages of this kind, although most of them are not 
widely attested, and can be but very slightly illustrated outside the 
writings which were influenced by the literary language, namely 
those of Luke and Paul (James). See Yiteau, p. 173. The rarest of 
these usages is the addition to the infinitive of an attribute in the 
same case (which even in classical Greek is only possible with a 
pronoun) : the only N.T. instance is H. 2. 15 Std iravrbs rov £rjv. 

2. The nominative of the infinitive with the article, as also the 
accusative used independently of a preposition, are found sporadically 
in Mt. and Ma, somewhat more frequently in Paul, and practically 
nowhere in the remaining writers ; they are generally used in such 
a way that the anaphoric meaning of the article, with reference to 
something previously mentioned or otherwise well known, is more 
or less clearly marked. Mt. 15. 20 to avtVrois y^po-tr <j>ayeiv subj. 

1 On o-vvktt&vcu with ace. and inf. in 2 C. 7. 1 1 (?) see § 38, 2 note. 


(see 2): 20. 23 to KaOio-ai obj. (kolOlo-oxtiv 21): Mc. 9. IO to ava- 
vrrjvcu (9 dvacrrfj; T> however has in 10 as well Tt ko~Tiv orav Ik veKpiov 
dvao-TYJ): 12. 33 to dyairdv (see 30): A. 25. 1 1 Oavdrov . . .to dwoOaveiv: 
R 4. 1 3 17 kirayyeXla KXrjpovofxov avTov thai (epexegetical to eirayy. : 
the art. in both cases denoting something well known) : 7^ 18 to 
BkXetv. . .to KOLTepyd&o-Oai, ideas which have already been the subjects of 

-uTre/) l/xou (ppovelv (which you have previously done ; but FG read 
tov, cp. § 19, 1), H. 10. 31 (in Gr. 4. 18 kABC omit to). The force 
of the article is not so clear in 2 C. 9. 1 -n-epivo-ov eo-Tt to ypdfyeiv, cp. 
Demosth. 2. 3 to Sie^tevaL . . . ot^ kcoAws e'xetv rjyovpLcu (the article 
denotes something obvious, which might take place), Herm. Vis. iv. 
2. 6 atp€T(t>Tepov rjv clvtols to /z?) yewqOrjvai. But its use is still more 
lax with p,rj in 2 0. 10. 2 Seofxai to /xtj Traptbv dappyjorcu 2 , E. 14. 13, 21, 
2 0. 2. 1, and quite superfluous in 1 Th. 3. 3 to (om. tfABD al.) 
pL7)8eva o-atveo-OoA, 4. 6 to fir) virepfiaiveiv (whereas there is no art. in 
verses 3 f. with dirkyzo-Bai and elSkvai) ; this to p) (like tov par), infra 
3) is equivalent to a iva clause, and is found to a certain extent 
similarly used in classical writers after a verb of 'hindering (KaT^tv 
to pir) SaKpveLv Plato, Phaedo 117 c), while Skofxat to dapprjo-ai without 
a /mi] would clearly be impossible even in Paul. 3 

3. The genitive of the infinitive, not dependent on a preposition, 
has an extensive range in Paul and still more in Luke ; it is found 
to a limited degree in Matthew and Mark, but is wholly, or almost 
wholly, absent from the other writers. According to classical usage 
it may either be dependent on a noun or verb which governs a 
genitive, or it is employed (from Thucydides onwards, but not very 
frequently) to denote aim or object (being equivalent to a final sen- 
tence or an inf. with eveKa). Both uses occur in the N.T., but the 
manner of employing this inf. has been extended beyond these 
limits, very much in the same way that the use of ha has been 
extended. It is found after nouns such as xpovos, Katpos, egovo-ca, 
iXirts, xP^ a: L. 1. 57, 2. 6, 1 P. 4. 17, L. 10. 19, 22. 6, A. 27. 20, 
1 C. 9. 10, R 15. 23, H. 5. 12 ; in these cases the inf. without the 
art. and the periphrasis with Iva may also be used, § 69, 5, without 
altering the meaning (whereas in Attic a tov of this kind ordin- 
arily keeps its proper force), and passages like L. 2. 21 kTrXr)o-6rjo-av 
rjfxkpai oktco tov TrepLTepidv avTov show a very loose connection 
between the inf. and the substantive (almost = wcnre irepLTepieiv, !W 

1 In this passage and in 2 C. 7. n (R. 14. 13, 2 C. 2. 1) rovro precedes, but 
the pronoun in no way occasions the use of the art., cp. (without an art.) 1 C. 
7. 37 etc., § 69, 6 (Buttm. p. 225). 

2 In A. 4. 18 iraprjyyeCKav to (om. K*B) Kad6\ov /ut] (pdeyyecrOcu the article, if 
correctly read, should be joined with KadoXov, cp. § 34, 7, Diod. Sic. 1. yj. 

3 A parallel from the lxx. is quoted (Viteau, p. 164), viz. 2 Esdr. 6. 8 to jlltj 
KCLTapyrjdrjvai, l that it may not be hindered. ' 


irepLT€jJUi)criv). Cp. further R. 8. 12 o<£et Xerat . . . rov Kara trapim (rjv, 
E-. 1. 24 OLKaOapo-cav, rov art fid^ecr 'at, =w(TTe cot.; the connection with 
the subst. is quite lost in 1 C. 10. 13 rr)v eK/3ao-iv, rov Svvao-Oat 
virevtyKeiv, R. 11. 8 O.T. 6<£>6a\fjLovs rov /jlyj fiXkireiv kcu <x>ra rov fxr) 
aKoveiv, 'such eyes that they' etc. (ibid. 10 O.T. crKorio-O-jrioo-av ol 
o<£#. rov pi) /3X.). Also A. 14. 9 on e^et ttlcttlv rov crtodfjvat, the faith 
necessary to salvation, = tt. coo-re o-toOrjvai; Ph. 3. 21 rrjv evepyetav rov 
Svvao-Otu (the force whereby He is able), 07 -Kpodv\Lia rov OeXetv 
2 C. 8. 11 the zeal to will, which makes one willing. With adjectives 
we have d^tov rov Tropeveo-Oac 1 C. 16. 4 as in classical Greek; the 
instances with verbs, which in classical Greek govern the genitive, 
are equally few, k^airopr)dr\vai rov (rjv 2 C. 1. 8 (diropeiv Ttvos; also 
e^ano peter dai rcvos Dionys. Hal.), eAa^ev rov dvpuao-ai L. 1. 9 (LXX. 
has the same use in 1 Sam. 14. 47 ; but in classical Greek in spite of 
Xayydveiv nvos this verb only takes the simple inf., and the rov with 
the inf. corresponds rather to its free use in the examples given 
below). The construction of rov fir) and the inf. with verbs of 
hindering, ceasing etc. (Lc, but also in the LXX.) has classical pre- 
cedent, e.g. Xen. Anab. iii. 5. 1 1 7ras aavcos Svo avSpas e^ei rov fxrj 
KaraSvvat ; but the usage is carried further, and rov firj clearly has 
the meaning * so that not': L. 4. 42 (Kareyew), 24. 16 (KpareioSai), 
A. 10. 47 (kco\v€lv), 14. 18 (Kara-n-aveiv), 20. 20, 27 (v7rocrreXXecr0at ; 
D incorrectly omits the prj), also L. 17. 1 dvevSeKrov lo-rt rov p) ... 
(cp. from the O.T. 1 P. 3. 10 iraveiv, R. 11. 10 o-Kono-6rjvou, vide 
supra 1 ). Paul however has this inf. without fir), so that its dependence 
on the principal verb is clear, R. 15. 22 eveKowroprjv rov eXOetv. Cp. 
to firj 9 supra 2. — A final (or consecutive) sense is the commonest 
sense in which rov and rov /jlyj are used in the N.T. : Mt. 13. 3 
e^rjXOev 6 o-Trecpcov rov cnreipeiA/, 2. 13 (rjretv rov d7roXecrat, 21. 32 fiere- 
jjLtXrjOrjre rov 7rio~revo-ai (so as to), 3. 13, 11. I, 24. 45 (om. rov D), 
H. 10. 7 (O.T.), 11. 5. The simple inf. has already acquired this 
final sense ; there is a tendency to add the rov to the second of two 
infinitives of this kind for the sake of clearness : L. 1. 76 f, 78 f., 
2. 22, 24, A. 26. 18. The rov is then used in other cases as well, 
being attached in numerous instances at any rate in Luke (especially 
in the Acts ; occasionally in James) to infinitives of any kind what- 
ever after the example of the LXX. 2 : it is found after iyevero 
A. 10. 25 (not in D, but this MS. has it in 2. 1), eKptdrj 27. i, cp. 
Iyevero yvcopirjs rov 20. 3 (dve/Srj Itti rrjv KapSlav Herm. Vis. iii. 7. 2), 
ewio-relXai 15. 20, wapaKaXetv 21. 12, evreXXeorQai L. 4. 10 O.T. 
(Ps. 90. 11), irpoo-tvxecrOaL Ja. 5. 17, Karaveveiv L. 5. 7, crr7)pi£eiv rb 
7rp6ort67rov 9. 51, o~vvri0eo~0ai A. 23. 20, iroieiv 3. 12, eroifxos 23. 15 
(Herm. Sim. viii. 4. 2). The only infinitive which cannot take the 
rov is one which may be resolved into a on clause : it is the possi- 
bility of substituting Iva or wcrre for it which forms the limitation to 

1 The LXX. has Gen. 16. 2 avveKkeLo-ev rov fir] ..., 20. 6 4<pei(T&[i7)i> crov rov fir] ... 
Ps. 38. 2 0uAd£w ras odovs /jlov rod fxr) ..., 68. 24 ( = R. 11. io). Viteau, p. 172. 

2 E.g. in 1 Kings 1. 35 after iveTeiXdfjLrjv, Ezek. 21. 1 1 and 1 Mace. 5. 39 after 
Zroifxos. Viteau, p. 170. 


its use. 1 It is especially frequent in an explanatory clause loosely 
appended to the main sentence : L. 24. 25 fipaSets rrj KapUa, tov 
irio-reva-ai (in believing; rov it. om. D), cp. fipaS. els to infra 4, 
A. 7» 19 iKOLKojorcv robs iraTepas, rod 7rot€tv 2 (so as to make, in that he 
made, =7Totwv or kcu ewolei), L. 1. 73, R. 6. 6, 7. 3, Ph. 3. 10 
(R 1. 24, 1 0. 10. 13, vide supra). A quite peculiar instance is 
Ap. 12. 7 eyeveTO TroXepos ei/ tw ovpavQ, 6 Mi^a^A /cat ot dyyeXot avrov 
70V (tou om. fc*B) 7roXeprjo~ai peTa to£ 8paK0VT0S. a 

4. The dative of the inf. without a preposition is found only once 
in Paul to denote reason: 2 C. 2. 13 ovk eo*x^^a dveo-iv rw irvev- 
pare pov, to) pr) evpeiv pe Tltov (LP to pr), tt*C 2 tov pr), both readings 

impossible ; but DE perhaps correctly have ev tw prj, cp. inf. 6). 

5. Prepositions with the accusative of the infinitive. Els to 
denotes aim or result ( = tra or axrre) : Mt. 20. 19 7rapaBa>orovcnv els 
to epTrai^at,, cp. 26. 2, 27. 31, Mc. 14. 55 (tVa davaruo-ovcrLV D), 
L. 5. 17 (D reads differently), A. 7. 19, Ja. 1. 18, 3. 3 (v.l. 7rpbs), 
1 P. 3. 7, 4. 2 ; very frequent in Paul (and Hebrews), E. 1. 11, 20, 
3. 26, 4. 11 fo's, 16, 18 etc., also used very loosely as in 2 C. 8. 6 els 
to irapaKaXkcrai 'to such an extent that we exhorted'; further 
notable instances are 1 Th. 3. 10 Seopevoi els rb ISetv, = Iva iSaypev, 
§ 69, 4 : Trjv eiriOvpiav e^wv els to dvaXvo-ou Ph. 1. 23 (DEFGr omit 
els, which gives an impossible construction). (This use of els is 
nowhere found in the Johannine writings ; on the other hand it is 
found in the First Epistle of Clement, e.g. in 65. 1 where it is parallel 
with otto)s.) It is used in another way in Ja. 1. 19 tccy^s els to aKovo-ai, 
ftpa&vs els to XaXrjcrat, /3pa§vs els opy-qv, the inf. being treated as equi- 
valent to a substantive (Herm. Mand. i. 1 6 Troarjcras Ik tov prj ovtos 
els to elvaL Tot TrdvTa, like iroieiv els vxpos Clem. Cor. i. 59. 3). — Aim 
(or result) is likewise denoted by irpbs to, which however is nowhere 
very frequent : Mt. 5. 28 6 f3Xe7ro)V yvvaiKa irpos to eTrtOvprjo-ac avTrjs, 
6. I rrpbs to Oeadfjvcu avTOis, 13. 30, 23. 5, 26. 12, Mc. 13. 2 2, 

L. 18. 1 (irpbs to Selv 7rpoo-evx.eo-Qcu, with reference to), A. 3. 19 tfB 
(rell. els), 2 C. 3. 13, Eph. 6. n (DEFG els), 1 Th. 2. 9, 2 Th. 3. 8.— 
Aid to to denote the reason is frequent in Luke : 2. 4, 8. 6 etc., 
A. 4. 2, 8. 11 etc.; also in Mt. 13. 5, 6, 24. 12, Mc. 4. 5, 6, 5. 4 (D 
is different), (in Jo. 2. 24 Std to olvtov yiv&o~Keiv irdvTas is certainly not 
genuine : the words are omitted by the Lewis Syriac and Nonnus, 
and, apart from irpb tov [infra 6], Jo. has no ex. of inf. alter prep, 
and article 3 ), Ja. 4. 2, Ph. 1. 7 (the solitary instance in Paul), 
H. 7. 23 f., 10. 2. — MeTa to is used in statements of time: Mt. 26. 32, 
Mc. i. 14, 14. 28 [16. 19], L. 12. 5, 22. 20, A. 1. 3, 7. 4, 10. 41, 
15. 13, 19. 2i, 20. 1, 1 C. 11. 25, H. 10. 15. 26.— The accus. of the 
inf. is nowhere found with em, kcitcc, napd. 

1 In Hennas, however, even this limit is transgressed, Mand. xii. 4. 6 treavrf 
K^KpiKas rod fX7] dtivao-dai, - 8tl ov SvvacraL. 

2 There is an exact parallel in the lxx., 1 Kings 17. 20 av /ce/cd/cw/cas tov Oava- 
ruxrai rov vibv avTTjs. 

3 The subsequent clause in 2. 25 runs in AT b Syr. /cal ov xP € ^ av el X ev i in Nonnus 
and others ov yap xP^ aj/ &X ev ' a y ' ^PP* P- ^22. 

§ 7i. 6-7. § 72. 1.] INF. WITH ART. CASES WITH INF. 237 

6. Prepositions with the genitive of the infinitive. 'AvtI tov 
4 instead of Ja. 4. 15. Aid ttolvtos tov £fjv H. 2. 15 'all through life/ 
cp. supra 1 ad fin. 5 Ek tov e'x«v 2 C. 8. 1 1, probably = Kadb dv €\y 
of verse 12 (pro facultatibus, Grimm). "Evckcv tov (fravtpiDdrjvai 
2 C. 7. 12 (formed on the model of the preceding evtKev tov 
dStK-qcravTos k.t.X.; otherwise evtKev would be superfluous). "Eo>s tov 
iXOetv A. 8. 40 (post-classical, in the lxx. Gen. 24. 33, Viteau) ; the 
Attic use of ^XP L (^XP L ) T0 ^ w ^ n the ^- does not occur - Hp° tov 
Mt. 6. 8, L. 2. 21, 22. 15, A. 23. 15, Jo. 1. 49, 13. 19, 11. 5, G. 2. 12, 
3. 23. The gen. of the inf. is nowhere found with diro, /^ei-a, irepi, 
v-n-ep, nor yet with dvtv, x w P ts > X ( ¥ >tv e ^ c * 

7. The preposition kv is used with the dative of the infinitive, 
generally in a temporal sense = ' while': Mt. 13. 4 kv to) onreipeLv 
avrov, = the classical cnreipovTos avTov (since Attic writers do not use 
kv Tw in this way, as Hebrew writers certainly use 2, Gesen.-Kautzsch 
§ 114, 2), a 13. 25, 27. 12, Mc. 4. 4, L. 1. 8, 2. 6, 43, & I etc. (kyeveTO kv 
tw is specially frequent, e.g. 1. 8, 2. 6), A. 2. 1, 9. 3, 19. 1 (kykv. kv 
tw), R 3. 4 O.T., 15. 13 (om. DEFG, the clause is probably due to 
dittography of eh to irepio-o-eveLv), G. 4. 18. This phrase generally 
takes the present infinitive, in Luke however it also takes the aorist 
inf., in which case the rendering of it is usually altered from ' while ' 
to ' after that ' (so that it stands for the aorist participle or oVe with 
the aorist) : L. 2. 27 kvTco elcrayayeiv = elaayayovTcuv or otc elcrrjyayov, 
(3. 21 €Vtw /3a7TTio~9rjvaL [ = ot€ kpa7TTior6rj\ airavTa tov Xabv kcll 'Irjo-ov 
J3a7TTLo-6kvTos, the two things are represented as simultaneous events), 
8. 40 (vwoo-TpefaLv «B), 9. 34 (simultaneous events), 36, 11. 37, 14. 1, 
19. 15, 24. 30, A. 11. 15. 1 Also H. 2. 8 kv t£ koTa^at, where again 
simultaneousness is expressed, 'in that' or 'by the fact that/ 
= v7roTd£as ; a similar meaning is expressed in 8. 13 by kv rw Xkyeiv 
6 in that he says/ l by saying ' ; further instances of a meaning that 
is not purely temporal are Mc. 6. 48 /3ao-avi(ofjLkvovs kv to> kXavveiv, 
in rowing: L. 1. 21 kQavfjiafav kv tw, when and that he tarried: 
A. 3. 26 kv tw aVoo-Tpecjfretv, in that he turned = by turning; so 4. 30 
(Herm. Vis. i. 1. 8). — The articular infinitive is never found with kirl 
or Trpos. 


1. The classical language has but few exceptions to the rule that 
the subject of the infinitive, if identical with the subject of the main 
verb, is not expressed, but is supplied from the main verb in the 
nominative (§ 70, 1) ; the exceptions are occasioned by the necessity 
for laying greater emphasis on the subject, or by assimilation to an 
additional contrasted subject, which must necessarily be expressed 

1 Accordingly one might expect in L. 10. 35 b> t$ 4iravtpxe<rdal jxe a7roddb(ru} 
rather to have i-rraveXdew, cp. 19. 15 ; but the meaning is not 'after my return' 
but 'on my way back.' a v. App. p. 322. 


by the accusative. On the other hand, the interposition of a preposi- 
tion governing the infinitive produces no alteration of the rule, nor 
again the insertion of 8elv, xPl vaL ( of which insertion there are no 
instances in the N.T. if we except A. 26. 9 in Paul's speech before 
Agrippa). The same rule applies to the N.T.; the subject of the 
infinitive which has already been given in or together with the main 
verb, in the majority of cases is not repeated with the infinitive : and 
if the infinitive is accompanied by a nominal predicate or an apposi- 
tional phrase agreeing with its subject, the latter is nowhere and the 
former is not always a reason for altering the construction, in other 
words the appositional phrase must and the predicate may, as in 
classical Greek, be expressed in the nominative. 2 C. 10. 2 oeo/xou to 
ixrj irap<J)v (apposition) Oappfjo-cu, E. 9. 3 rjvxofxrjv dvaGejia (predic.) etvai 
avrbs hio, (Jo. 7. 4 where according to BD the ace. avrb should be 
read for auTos), a H. 1. 22 <j)do-Kovres etvai crocfiOL, H. 11. 4 efiaprvpiqOrj etvai 
StKcuos (in Ph. 4. 1 1 e^aOov avrapK-qs etvai the nom. is necessary, since 
the ace. and inf. is out of place with fxavOdveiv which in meaning is 
related to the verb i to be able '). Instances of omission of subject, 
where there is no apposition or predicate : L. 24. 23 Xeyovo-ai 
ecopaKevai, Ja. 2. 14, 1 Jo. 2. 6, 9, Tit. 1. 16 (with Xeyeiv and 
opLoXoyelv; it is superfluous to quote instances with OeXeiv, frrelv 

2. There are however not a few instances where, particularly if a 
nominal predicate is introduced, the infinitive (in a way that is 
familiar in Latin writers) 1 keeps the reflexive pronoun in the accusa- 
tive as its subject, and then the predicate is made to agree with 
this. A. 5. 36 QevSas Xeyiov etvai Tti/a eavrov, 8. 9, L. 23. 3, Ap. 2. 9 
and 3. 9 rcov Xeyovriov 'lovSatovs etvai eavrovs (in 2. 2 most MSS. omit 
etvai), L. 20. 20 viroKpivofJievov^ eavrovs SiKaiovs etvai (etvai om. D), 
R. 2. 19 ir'eiroiOas creavrbv oSrjybv etvai, 6. II Xoyl^ecrOe eavrgvs etvai 
veKpovs. According to the usage of the classical language there would 
in all these cases be no sufficient reason for the insertion of the 
reflexive ; after Xeyovrav in Ap. 2. 9 TovSouW would have had to be 
used, but this assimilation is certainly not in the manner of the 
N.T., vide infra 6; in 1 C. 7. 11 a-vvecrTyja-are ('you have proved') 
eavrovs ayvovs etvai, classical Greek would have said -u/^a? avrovs Svras, 
see § 70, 3. The only instances of the reflexive being used where 
there is no nominal predicate are: Ph. 3. 13 eyw efiavrbv ovtto> 
\oyi£ KareiXrjcftevai, H. 10. 34 yivuxTKOvres eyeiv eavrovs Kpeiorcrova 
virap£iv (cp. § 70, 2), Clem. Cor. i. 39. 1 eavrovs /3ovX6/uLevoi eiraipecrOai, 
= class, avrol, Herm. Sim. vi. 3. 5, A. 25. 21 rov UavXov eTriKaXeo-a- 
fxevov rqpelcrOai avrov (cp. § 69, 4) : this last is the only instance 
(besides the reading of CD in L. 20. 7 fir) elSevai avrov?) where the 
pronoun is not reflexive (cp. E. 4. 2 2 -u/xas, but the whole construction 
of that sentence is far from clear). In A. 25. 4 the reflexive is kept 
where there is a contrasted clause as often in classical Greek : rrj- 

1 Also found in inscriptional translations from Latin, Viereck Sermo Graecus 
senatus Rom. p. 68, 12. ab v. App. p. 322. 

§ J2. 2-5.] WITH THE INFINITIVE. 239 

peca-Oai rbv II., eavrbv Se peXXuv k.t.X. (in classical Greek avrbs might 
also be used). 

3. More remarkable are the instances where an infinitive depend- 
ent on a preposition, though its subject is identical with that of the 
main verb, nevertheless has an accusative, and moreover an accusa- 
tive of the simple personal pronoun (not reflexive), attached to it 
as its subject. This insertion of the pronoun is a very favourite 
construction, if the clause with the inf. and prep, holds an independ- 
ent position within the sentence. Thus it is found after perd rb in 
Mt. 26. 32 =Mc. 14. 28 perd rb eyepOrjvat pe wpod^o), A. 1. 3 Trapearrrjcrev 
eavrbv (covra p,erd rb iraOelv avrov (19. 21 perd to yevecrOcu, but D adds 
/xe, Herm. Yis. ii. 1. 3, Mand. iv. 1. 7, Sim. viii. 2. 5, 6. 1). After 81a 
rb : L. 2. 4 ave/3r]...$ia to elvai avrbv, 19, II, (Jo. 2. 24 8id rb avrbv 
yiV(oo~K€Lv not genuine, § 71, 5), Ja. 4. 2 ovk e\ere 8cd to prj alrelo-Oai vpds, 
H. 7. 24. "E«s tov eXOelv olvtov A. 8. 40. Ilpb tou L. 22. 15. a Ev to> 
KaTrjyopeicrOaL avrbv ovSev aireKpivero Mt. 27. 12, cp. L. 9. 34, 10. 35, 
A. 4. 30, E. 3. 4 O.T., Clem. Cor.i. 10. 1. With the simple dative of the 
inf. 2 C. 2. 13. This accus. is not found in the N.T. in expressions 
denoting aim by means of eU rb and 71-pbs rb (though it occurs with 
els in Clem. Cor. i. 34. 7) ; nor is it found in all cases with perd etc. 
That the reflexive pronoun is not used is natural in view of the 
independent character of the clause with the infinitive and preposition. 
(The ace. is found after gW in Clem. Cor. i. 11. 2, 46. 7, Herm. 
Sim. ix. 6. 3, 12. 2 ; after rov in Clem. Cor. i. 25. 2 ; after irpiv in 
Herm. Sim. ix. 16. 3.) 

4. A certain scarcity of the use of the nominative with the infini- 
tive is seen in the fact that the personal construction with the 
passive voice such as Xeyopai dvai is by no means common in the 
N.T. writers (for H. 11. 4 epaprvpr l dr i elvai vide sup. 1; cp. 'Xpio-rbs 
Krjpvo-o-eraL on 1 C. 15. 12, 6 prjOeh Mt. 3. 3, rjKovo-Or) on used person- 
ally Mc. 2. I?, ^avepovo-dai on 2 C. 3. 3, 1 Jo. 2. 19, cfravepol ecrovjai 
on Herm. Sim. iv. 4). The personal construction is used more fre- 
quently with the inf. denoting something which ought to take place 
(8e8oKipdo-pe0a Trio-revdrjvai 1 Th. 2. 4; xwaTi£o-#at§69, 4; the latter 
verb is also found with the nom. and inf. of assertion in L. 2. 26 
according to the reading of D), and with adjectives (§ 69, 5) such as. 
Swaros, \kolv6s (but dpKeros in 1 P. 4. 3 does not affect the inf. which 
has a subject of its own) ; so too we have eSoga epavrco Seiv wpdgcu 
A. 26. 9, as well as eSo^e pot L. 1. 3 etc. 

5. The accusative and infinitive is also in comparison with its use 
in the classical language greatly restricted, by direct speech or by 
tva and oti; similarly instances of rb (nom. or ace.) with the ace. and 
inf. (as in E. 4. 13) are almost entirely wanting. On the other hand 
this construction has made some acquisitions, cp. supra 2 and^ 3, 
§ 70, 2 etc.; and a certain tendency to use the fuller construction 
(ace. and infin.) is unmistakable. However, even in cases where 
the accusative may be inserted, it need not always be used : thus we 
have ovtus ex €LV m A. 12. 15, but in 24. 9 ravra ovrus e'xetv; it may 
further be omitted with dvdyKrj and Set as in Mt. 23. 23 e8a irotrjo-aL 


(Le. Vfias), R. 13. 5 dvdy kyj viroTaa-creo-Oai (but see § 30, 3 with note 4 on 
p. 73 ; DE etc. read Sib vTrordo-crecrOe) ; or again if the subject of the inf. 
has already been mentioned in another case with the main verb, as in 
L. 2. 26 tjv avrco K€.\pr\iJiaTi(j[ikvov firj ISeiv (i.e. avrbv) Odvarov, or if it may 
readily be supplied from a phrase in apposition with the subject, as in 
IP. 2. 11 ayairrjTol, 7rapaK.a\Q> (i.e. vfxds) o>s irapoiKOvs ... aTre^ecr^at, 
cp. ibid. 15, Viteau, p. 149 f. The following, therefore, are the cases 
where the ace. and inf. is allowable : — with verbs of perceiving, 
recognizing, believing, asserting, showing, § 70, 1-3, where the object 
of this verb and the subject of the inf. is generally not identical with 
the subject of the principal verb : with verbs of making and allowing, 
also with some verbs of commanding and bidding such as Ktkeveiv, 
where the two things are never identical : with verbs of willing, 
where they usually are identical (and the simple inf. is therefore the 
usual construction), of desiring etc. : again with impersonal expressions 
like Set, ii/5e^€rat, dvdyKrj, oWaroV, dpeo-rov (ecrri), &pa (icrrcv) etc., 
also eyevero, crwe/Sy] ; with a certain number of these last expressions 
the subject of the infinitive is already expressed in the dative outside 
the range of the infinitive clause, while in the case of others there is 
a tendency to leave it unexpressed, either because it may readily be 
supplied as has been stated above, or in general statements because 
of its indefiniteness. To these instances must be added the inf. with 
a preposition and the article, and the inf. with irpiv, to, tov, coo-re, if 
the subject is here expressed and not left to be supplied. Some 
details may be noticed. With verbs of perceiving, knowing etc. 
(also making) frequently, as in classical Greek, the accusative is 
present, while the infinitive is replaced by on (or ha respectively) 
with a finite verb: A. 16. 3 rjSetcrav rbu irarkpa avrov on "EAA^i/ 
virrjpx^v, 3. 10, 4. 13, Mc. 11. 32, Gr. 5. 21, Ap. 3. 9 Trotrjo-O) avrovs 
iva tfgovo-tv ; cp. supra 4 for the nom. with a personal construction 
with on, and 1 C. 9. 15, § 69, 5 ; the accus. may also be followed by 
an indirect question, as in Jo. 7. 27 etc. 1 We may further note the 
ordinary passive construction with verbs of commanding, see § 69, 8 ; 
the verb Xkyeuv belongs to this category, which when used to express 
b, command, though it may take the dative of the person addressed 
with a simple infinitive (corresponding to an imperative of direct 
speech) as in Mt. 5. 34, 39, L. 12. 13, yet is also found with the ace. 
.and inf.: A. 21. 21 Aeycov (om. D) fir] 7reptT6/xveti/ avrovs rot Te/cva, 

22. 24 (pass.), L. 19. 15 (do. ), a where the ambiguity as to whether 
command or assertion is intended must be cleared up by the context. 
The dative with the inf. is also found after StaTacrcreiv (-to-Oai) A. 24. 

23, €iTLTd(T(r€LV (Mc. 6. 39 etc. ; also rdcro-etv A. 22. io), irapayyeWziv, 
evreWeo-Oai, also kiriTpkireLv, after impersonal and adjectival or sub- 
stantival expressions like crviufikpei, eOos ko-ri, dOkfxnov, alo-xpov, KaXov 
Icrrt etc. (cp. Dative § 37, 3); to which may be added o-vve<po)vq$rj 
.vfxiv irzipdo-ai A. 5. 9, § 37, 6, p. 114 note 1. But the ace. and inf. is 

1 Even by jul-^tcos after 0o/3e?cr^at, a verb which can certainly not take ace. and 
inf. : G. 4. 11 <pofiodfxai vfids (for you), jirqirws eUr} KeicoiriaKa ets v/jlols, with which 
„Soph. O.T. 760 is compared (Win. § 66, 5). ' a v. App. p. 322. 

§ 72. 5-6.1 WITH THE INFINITIVE. 24 1 

not excluded from being used with these words, being found not 
only with a passive construction as in A. 10. 48 irpoo-era^ev avrovs 
fiaTrTi(j6r)vai, Mc. 6. 27 errera^ev evey6f]vai (NBC have eveyKai which 
is less in accordance with N.T. idiom) rrjv Ke<fiaXrjv, but also with an 
active (eragav avafiaiveiv HavXov A. 15. 2), and even where the 
person addressed is identical with the subject of the inf., 1 Tim. 6. 
13 f. irapayyeXXo) ... rrjpyjo-ai ore. Also with o-vpicf>epei and Trpeirei there 
is nothing to prevent the inf. from having a subject of its own, as 
distinct from the person interested: Jo. 18. 14 crvpL^epet eva avOpuirov 
dTroOaveLv, 1 C. 11. 13; it is more remarkable that with KaXov Jem 
'it is good' the interested person may be expressed by the accusative 
with an inf. : Mt. 17. 4 = Mc. 9. 5, L. 9. ^^ kol\6v ecrnv rjpds &8e thai, 
where however the accusative may be justified, the phrase being 
equivalent to 'I am pleased that we are here': Mc. 9. 45 kol\6v ecrrtv 
o-e elo-eXOelv els rrjv farjv x^® 1 ' ( C P- 43? 47? where the mss. are more 
divided between 0-01 and o-e; o-oi is used in Mt. 18. 8 f.). a So too we 
have E. 13. 11 tipa fjpas eyepOfyac, where rjptv would be equally good : 
L. 6. 4 ovs ovk e^ecrnv cjxxyeiv el prj povovs rovs lepeis (D has the dat. 
as in Mt. 12. 4; in Mc. 2. 26 kBL have the ace, ACD etc. the 
dat.) : L. 20. 22 e^eorrtv rjpas ... Sovvcu HBL (rjpiv ACD al.). 'Eyevero 
frequently takes ace. and inf.; with the dat. it means 'it befell him 
that he' etc. A. 20. 16, G. 6. 14; but the ace. and inf. may also be 
used after a dative, A. 22. 6 eyevero p.01 . . . -Kepiao-rpa-fyai <^>c3s, even 
where the accusative refers to the same person as the dative, 22. 17 
eyevero pot . . . yeveo-Qai pe (a very clumsy sentence). On the indicative 
after eyevero see § 79, 4. The person addressed is expressed by the 
genitive after Seopac ' request ' ; if the subject of the inf. is the 
petitioner, 1 then we have the nom. and inf., L. 8. 38, 2 C. 10. 2 : if 
the person petitioned, the simple inf. is likewise used, L. 9. 38, 
A. 26. 3. The verbs of cognate meaning with the last take the 
accus. of the person addressed, namely epwrQ, irapaKakw, alrovpai, 
also d£tw, irapaivCy; here therefore we have a case of ace. and inf., 
but the infinitive has a greater independence than it has in the strict 
cases of ace. and inf., and may accordingly in spite of the accusative 
which has preceded take a further accusative as its subject (especially 
where a passive construction is used) : A. 13. 28 rjrrjo-avro IliXarov 
dvatpeOrjvat avrov, 1 Th. 5. 27 opKtfo vpas dvayvcoo-drjvat rrjv eirio-roXriv 
(here the choice of the passive is not without a reason, whereas in 
Acts loc. cit. D has rovrov pev o-ravpwo-ai). (A. 21. 12 TrapeKa Xovpev . . . 
rov p,7] avafSalveiv avrov.) 

6. Since the subject of the inf. generally stands or is thought of 
as standing in the accusative, it is natural that appositional clauses 
and predicates of this subject also take the accusative case, not only 
where the subject itself has or would have this case if it were 
expressed, but also where it has already been used with the principal 
verb in the genitive or dative. The classical language has the 

1 This strikes one as an unusual construction, but it is found elsewhere, 
rjpdbra Aa/3e*V A. 3. 3, rjrrjo-aTO evpetv 7. 46 (28. 20?) ; a classical instance is air&v 
Aa/3e?z> Aristoph. Plut. 240. a v. App. p. 322. 


242 PARTICIPLE (/.). [§ 72. 6. § 73. 1-2. 

choice of saying crvpifSovXevo) crot TrpoOvfxu) e^at or TrpoOvpiov etvat ; in 
the case of a genitive 6Yo/xai o-ov irpodvpov ehou is given the preference 
(an adj.), but irpoo-raTiqv yeveo-Qau (a subst.; Kuhner, Gr. ii. 590 f.) ; 
appositional clauses formed by means of a participle are freely- 
expressed by the dat. (or ace), but not by the gen.., the accusative 
being used instead. In the N.T. there is no instance of a predicate 
being expressed by gen. or dat.; appositional clauses are also for the 
most part placed in the accusative, as in L. 1. 73 f. rod Sovvat rj/uv... 
pvo-OevTas Xarpeveiv, H. 2. 10, A. 15. 22, 25 (in 25 ABL have 
1/cAe^a/xevots) etc.; the dat, is only found in the following passages, 
2 P. 2. 21 Kpeicrcrov rjv avrots fn) €7reyvu)K€Vcu . . . rj iirty vovcriv errio-Tpexpai 
(where however the participle belongs rather to Kpelo-crov rjv avrots 
than to the inf., as it decidedly does in A. 16. 21, where Tco/acuW 
ovctlv goes with e^&rriv rjfiiv ; so in L. 1. 3), L. 9. 59 kirirp^ov fxoi 
7Tp(orov a7re\06vTL (but D has -ra, AKII a7reXQeiv kolI) Odipat rbv irarkpa 
pov, A. 27. 3 eirerpeipev (sc. to> TLavXco) 717)05 rovs cfatXovs iropevdkvTL 
(**AB ; -rot HLP) kirLfxeXelas rvx^v. 


1. The participles — which are declinable nouns belonging to the 
verb, used to express not action or being acted upon, like the infini- 
tive, but the actor or the person acted on — have not as yet in the 
N.T. forfeited much of that profusion with which they appear in 
the classical language, since their only loss is that the future parti- 
ciples are less widely used (§ 61, 4) ; the further development of the 
language into modern popular Greek certainly very largely reduced 
the number of these verbal forms, and left none of them remaining 
except the (pres. and perf.) participles passive and an indeclinable 
gerund in place of the pres. part. act. The usages of the participle 
in the N.T. are also on the whole the same as in the classical 
language, though with certain limitations, especially with regard ta 
the frequency with which some of them are employed. 

2. Participle as attribute (or in apposition) with or without an 
article, equivalent to a relative sentence. Mt. 25. 34 rrjv rjToijjLaa-fjLtvrjv 
v/JLLV pacrtXetav, ==t. /3. rj vfxiv r}rotfiao~Tai : Mc. 3. 22 01 ypafxjxareis ol 
oltto *\epoo~oXvfMs)v Kara/Savres : L. 6. 48 ojjLOios icrrtv dvOpwTrtp olkoSo- 

fXOVVTL OLKLCLV, Cp. Mt. 7. 24 dvSpl OCTTt? (^Ko86/Xrj(T€V OLVTOV TTJV OLKiaV '. 

Mc. 5. 25 yw-q ovca kv pvcret at'^aro? k.t.X. (the participles continue for 
a long way; cp. L. 8. 43, where the first part, is succeeded by a relative 
sentence. Frequently we have 6 Aeyo/zevos, KaXovpLtvos (in Lc. also 
€7ri/<aA.., of surnames, A. 10. 18, cp. os kiriKaXeiTai 5. 32) followed by a 
proper name, the art. with the participle being placed after the generic 
word or the original name: opovs rov KaXovfievov kXaiQ>v A. 1. 12, 
'Irjo-ovs 6 Xeyo/jLtvos X/otcrros Mt. 1. 16 1 (we never find such expressions 

1 Jo. 5. 2 £<ttiv ... [e'71-t 7-77 TrpopaTiKrj] KoXv/n^dpa 7] eTrikeyoixivt) ... BTjdecrdd (D 
reads Xey. without ij, K* to \ey6fievop) ; in this passage the article must have been 

73- 2-3.] PARTICIPLE (I.). 


as in Thuc. ii. 29. 3 rrjs QcoklSos vvv KaXovfieu^s yyjs, or in iv. 8. 6 rt 
vrjcros rj HcfraKTrjpia KaXovfievrj). A point to be noticed is the separa- 
tion of the participle from the word or words which further define 
its meaning : a R. 8. 18 rrjv jneXXovcrav Sogav aTTOKaXv^Srjvai, G. 3. 23, 
1 C. 12. 22 ra SoKovvra [ikX-q . . . virapyeiv, 2 P. 3. 2, A. 13. 1 iv 
'AvTto)(aa Kara ttjv ovcrav iKKXiqcriav, 14. 13 rov ovtos Atos tt/oo TroXews 
according to the reading of D (see Eamsay, Church in Eoman 
Empire, p. 51 f.), 28 17, Participles as a rule do not show a 
tendency to dispense with the article, even where the preceding 
substantive has none; in that case (cp. § 47, 6) the added clause 
containing the article often gives a supplementary definition or a 
reference to some well-known fact : 1 P. 1. 7 \pvcrtov rov diroXXvjuievov, 
L. 7. 32 7ratStoiS Tot? kv dyopa KaOyjfJLevocs, Jo. 12. 12 6'xAos 7roXvs (6 
6'xAos 7roXvs BL; perhaps ttoXvs should be omitted, so Nonnus) 6 
iXOcov els ttjv eopTrjV, A. 4. 12 ov8e yap ovopid icrrcv erepov to SeSoptvov. 
In these last and in similar passages (Mc. 14. 41, A. 11. 21, where 
DE al. omit the art., Jd. 4, 2 Jo. 7) the presence of the article 
is remarkable, not because it would be better omitted — for that must 
have obscured the attributive character of the clause — but because 
according to Attic custom this attributive character should rather 
have been expressed by a relative sentence. The same use of the 
art. is found with Ttves without a substantive : L. 18. 9 nvas tovs 
ireirotOoTas e<£' iavrols, G. 1. 7 d fir) tlvzs elcrcv oi rapdcro-ovres vpids, 
Col. 2. 8 ; the definite article here has no force, and we may compare 
in Isocrates ela-l Tcves ot pkya cfrpovovcriv (10. 1), e. t. 01 ...4'xowt 
(15. 46). 1 These constructions have therefore been caused by the 
fact that a relative sentence and a participle with the article have 
become synonymous. 2 — The participle with article is found, as in 
classical Greek, with a personal pronoun, Ja. 4. 120-11 rk d 6 Kplvuv 
(os Kpivecs KL), 1 C. 8. 10 o-e (om. B al.) rbv €x ovra , R* 9. 20, Jo. 1. 12 
etc.; also where the pronoun must be supplied from the verb, H. 4. 3 
elo-epxofieOa . . . oi Trio-revoravres, 6. 18; it is especially frequent with 
an imperative, Mt. 7. 23, 27. 40 (also oval vjjllv, ot iixTreirX^o-pikvoi 
[ = 0? i/jLTre'irX^o'Oe^ L. 6. 25, though in 24 we have oval vplv rots 
ttXovo-lols ; A. 13. 16 dvSpes 'IcrparjXiraL /cat [sc. v/xeis] ol <po/3ov/JLevot 
rbv 6e6v, 2. 14; § 33, 4). 

3. The participle when used without a substantive (or pronoun) 
and in place of one, as a rule takes the article as it does in classical 
Greek : 6 7rapa$i8ovs /xe Mt. 26. 46 (cp. 48 ; 'lovSas 6 trap, avrov 25), 
6 kX€7tt(ov 'he who has stolen hitherto' E. 4. 28 etc. so also when 
used as a predicate (cp. § 47, 3), Jo. 8. 28 eyw dpa 6 p.apTvpQ>v, 6. 6$ 
etc. Where it is used with a general application as in E. 4. 28 loc. 
cit. iras may be inserted: irdo-i rots KaroiKovo-iv A. 1. 19; irds 6 

omitted according to Attic usage, but may stand according to the usage of the 
N.T. : cp. the further instances given of this in the text. The reading to 
Xeydfievov (and the insertion of rj) may be due to KoXvjm^rjdpa being taken as a 

1 In Lys. 19. 57 eltrl Tires ot TrpoavakiaKovres it has not unreasonably been pro- 
posed to read ol irpoava\io-Kovo-i. 

2 For an instance where ot is omitted cp. Mc. 14. 4 rjcrdv Tives ayavaKTovvTes, a 
periphrasis for the imperfect. a v. App. p. 322. 

244 PARTICIPLE (/.). [§ 73- 3-4. 

6pyi£6fjL€vos Mt. 5. 25, cp. 28, 7. 8 etc., L. 6. 30, 47 etc., A. 10. 43, 

13. 39 (Tras 6 not elsewhere in Acts), E. 1. 16, 2. 1 etc., though in 
other cases the article cannot be used with Tras ' everyone/ § 47, 9. 
Cp. Soph. Aj. 152 Tras 6 kXvw, Demosth. 23. 97 Tras 6 Ok^vos 
(Kriiger, Gr. 50, 4, 1 : 11, 11). The article is omitted in Mt. 13. 19 
7rai/Tos aKovovrosy L. 11. 4 iravri ocpetXovTi (LX insert art.; 1) reads 
quite differently), 2 Th. 2. 4, Ap. 22. 15 ; and in all cases where a 
substantive is introduced as in Mt. 12. 25 (here again participle with 
art. is equivalent to a relative sentence, cp. ?ras oottl^ Mt. 7. 24 with 
the part, in 2 6). Instances without 71-as where the art. is omitted (occa- 
sionally found in class. Gk., Kuhner-Gerth ii. 3 608 f.) : rjyovpevos 
Mt. 2. 6 O.T. (see § 47, 3), <£o>i^ (3owvtos Mc. 1. 3 O.T., l X €ts feet 

KpOLTOVVTOLS Ap. 2. 1 4, OVK €(TTLV (TVVLWV K.T.A. R>. 3. I I f. O.T. (aCCOrd- 

ing to (A)BG-, other mss. insert art., in lxx. Ps. 13. i f. most mss. 
omit it), ' one who ' or ' persons who,' though with o-ik tcrriv, e^w and 
similar words the article is not ordinarily omitted in Attic. — 
Neuter participle, sing, and plur.: Mt. 1. 20 to kv avrrj yewrjOev, 
2. 15 and passim to pr)6ev, L. 2. 27 to elOta-fievov (edos D) tov vofxov 
{cp. § 47, 1), 3. 13 to diaTerayfjievov v/jliv, 4. 1 6 KaTot to eiwObs avTW, 
8. 56 to yeyovos, 9. 7 Tot yevo/zei/a, Jo. 16. 13 ra Ip^o/^eva, 1 C. 1. 28 
Ta e^ovOevrjfjLeva, tol fxrj ovTa, tol 01/Ta, 10. 27 irav to irapaTtOe/jLevov, 

14. 7, 9 to avAov/A€voi> etc., 2 0. 3. 10 f. to 8e8o£acr/JLevov, to KaTapyov- 

/JL€VOV etC, H. 12. IO KCLTO. TO SoKOVV aVTOLS, €7Tfc TO CTVfJLcfltpOV, 12. II 

Trpos to rrapov etc. On the whole, as compared with the classical 
language, the use of the neuter is not a very frequent one : like the 
masculine participle it sometimes has reference to some individual 
thing, sometimes it generalizes ; to a-vfi^epov has also (as in Attic) 
become a regular substantive, if it is the correct reading, and not 
<rv/JLcf>opov, in 1 C. 7. 35, 10. 33 to vfxojv aurwv (kpiavTOv) o-vpL<p€pov 
(k c al.). — In one or two passages we also find the rare future parti- 
ciple used with the article without a substantive : L. 22. 49 to 
Zo-6/jl€vov (to yevofx. D ; other mss. omit these words altogether from 
the text), etc., see § 61, 1. 

4. The participle stands as part of the predicate in the first place 
in the periphrastic forms of the verb, § 62 : viz. in the perfect (and 
fut. perf.) as in classical Greek, also according to Aramaic manner in 
the imperfect and future, the boundary-line between this use of the 
participle and its use as a clause in apposition being not very clearly 
drawn, ibid. 2. The finite verb used with it is ctvcu or yivzarQai 
(ibid. 3). This predicative participle is further used as the comple- 
ment of a series of verbs which express a qualified form of the verb 
'to be* (to be continually, to be secretly etc.), and which by them- 
selves give a quite incomplete sense; still this use of the part, as the 
complement of another verb has very much gone out in the N.T. and 
is mainly found only in Luke and Paul (Hebrews). 'Yirdpxciv (strictly 
'to be beforehand/ 'to be already' so and so, though in the N.T. 
and elsewhere in the later language its meaning is weakened to that 
of dvai ; nowhere in the N.T. has it the sense of 'to take the lead in 
an action') takes a participle in A. 8. 16, 19. 36, Ja. 2. 15 yv/mvol 
VTrdp-^ojcriv kol Aet7ro/x€vo6 (okn,v add. ALP) Trjs ... Tpocfirjs; Trpovirapyew 

§ 73- 4-5.] PARTICIPLE (/.). 245 

(which obviously contains the meaning of 'before'; a classical word) 
takes a part, in L. 23. 12 (D is different) : but the part, is independ- 
ent in A. 8. 9 Trpov7rrjpxev kv rrj ttoXcl, fiayeviov k.t.X. (cp. the text of 
D). If the complement of this and of similar verbs is formed by an 
adjective or a preposition with a noun, then &v should be inserted ; 
but this participle is usually omitted with this verb and the other 
verbs belonging to this class, cp. infra ; Phrynichus 277 notes 4>lXos 
croc rvyyavu) without wv as a Hellenistic construction (though instances 
of it are not wanting in Attic). — This verb rvyxdvo) 'to be by 
accident' never takes a part, in N.T.; 8uiT€\€tv 'to continue' takes 
an adj. without &v in A. 27. 33, for which we have en-ifie'vciv (cp. 
Sta^evoi Xkyayv Demosth. 8. 7 1 x ) in ' Jo.' 8. 7 hrk^vov e/xorcovres, 
A. 12. 16, Clem. Cor. ii. 10. 5, and as in Attic ov SikXnrev Kara^tXovo-a 
L. 7. 45, cp. A. 20. 27 D, Herm. Yis. i. 3. 2, iv. 3. 6, Mand. ix. 8. 
"Apyjeo-Qai in Attic takes a participle, if the initial action is contrasted 
with the lasting or final action, elsewhere the inf., which is used 
in all cases in the N.T.; however there is no passage where the 
part, would have had to be used according to the Attic rule. a navco-Oat 
takes a part, in L. 5. 4, A. 5. 42, 6. 13 etc., E. 1. 16, Col. 1. 9, 
H. 10. 2 (where it has a part. pass, ovk dv kiravaavro irpoo-fapofxevai); 
for which we have the unclassical reXetv in Mt. 11. 1 krkXecrev Siardo-- 
o-wv (cp. D in Luke 7. 1). — Aav0dv€iv only takes a part, in H. 13. 2 
eXaOov (sc. eavrovs) gtvco-avTes (literary language) ; <f>atv€<r6<u in Mt. 6. 
18 6Vws fxr) <f>avrjs rots dvOpuwois vrjcrrevoyv, where however vrjcrrevoiv 
is an addition to the subject as in verse 17 <rv 8e vrjarr. aXcuf/ai, and 
<pavfjs t. dvOp. is an independent clause as in verse 5 (we nowhere 
have <fiaLvo/jLaL or <fiavepos elfjii, 8r)X6s elfju with a part, in the Attic 
manner =' it is evident that'; on ^avepovcrOai on see § 70, 3). — With 
verbs meaning ' to cease ' or ' not to desist ' may be reckoned e-yicaKetv 
which takes a part, in G-. 6. 9, 2 Th. 3. 13 ; the Attic words Kdfiveiv, 
dirayopevew 'to fail,' dvky&rQai, Kaprepeiv, VTrofikvetv do not appear 
with a participle. — IIpo€<|>0a(r€v avrbv Xkymv Mt. 17. 25 agrees with 
classical usage (the simple verb has almost lost the meaning of 
'before'); it takes the inf. in Clem. Cor. ii. 8. 2, see § 69, 4.— Other 
expressions denoting action qualified in some way or other take a 
part.: KaXm iroidv as in Attic, . KaAws kirotrjo-as Trapayevo/xevos A. 10. 
33, cp. Ph. 4. 14, 2 P. 1. 19, 3 Jo. 6 ; for which we find incorrectly 
€v irpdo-o-eiv in A. 15. 29 1 To this category belongs also rC voieim 
Xvovres Mc. 11. 5, cp. A. 21. 13; and again rffxaprov TrapaSovs Mt. 
27. 4. — Otx^o-Oai and the like are never found with a participle. 

5. A further category of verbs which take a participle as their 
complement consists of those which denote emotion, such as x a £p €LV > 
opyifcorOai, aio-xvveo-Oai and the like; this usage, however, has almost 
disappeared in the N.T. A. 16. 34 rjyaXXtdro TraricrrevKus is an 
undoubted instance of it; but Jo. 20. 20 kxaprjo-av ioovTes 2 undoubtedly 
means 'when they saw Him' (the participle being an additional 
independent statement), as in Ph. 2. 28 Iva ISovres avrbv x a PV T€ i Mt. 

1 'EfifieveLP with a part, occurs in an inscriptional letter of Augustus, Viereck 
Sermo Graecus senatus Rom. p. 76. 

2 '15. rov KTupiov is wanting in a. a v. App. p. 322. 

246 PARTICIPLE (/.). [§ 73 . 5. 

2. 10. Another instance is 2 P. 2. 20 86gas ov rpepLovo-tv fiXao-- 
cf>r)fjLovvTes 'do not shudder at reviling'; but in 1 C. 14. 18 ev^aptcrTw... 
XaXtov is a wrong reading (of KL ; correctly AaAw). — The use of the 
participle as a complement has been better preserved in the case of 
verbs of perceiving and apprehending ; in classical Greek the part, 
stands in the nominative, if the perception refers to the subject, e.g. 
6/5w fjfxapTYiKus, in the accusative (or genitive) if it refers to the 
object, whereas in the N.T. except with passive verbs the nominative 
is no longer found referring to the subject (on is used instead in 
Mc. 5. 29, 1 Jo. 3. 14). With verbs meaning to see (fiXe™, 0ewpt3, 
[opwl ei8ov, eOeao-dfJLrjv, eopaKa, reOeapai, oi/so/jlcu) we have Mt. 24. 30 
6\povT(u rbv vlbv rov dvOp. ipxbpevov, cp. 15. 31, Mc. 5. 31, Jo. 1. 32, 
38 etc.; with ovra A. 8. 23, 17. 16; with an ellipse of this participle 
(cp. supra 4; also found in classical Greek, Kriiger, Gr. § 56, 7, 4) 
Jo. 1. 51 €i86v (re vrroKaroj rrjs crvKrjs, Mt. 25. 38 f. el8op.kv o~€ £eVov, 
dcrOevrj (doSevovvra BD), cp. 45, A, 17. 2 2 o>s 8eLO-L8atp,ov€ornpov<s vpids 
Oeupu). 1 (These verbs also take on, § 70, 2.) Occasionally with the 
verb ' to see ? as with other verbs of this kind the participle is rather 
more distinct from the object and presents an additional clause, 
while object and verb together give a fairly complete idea : Mt. 22. 
II etSev l/cet dvOpioirov ovk ev8e8vpLevov K.r.X., = os ovk €ve8e8vro, Mc. 11. 
13 I8(bv crvKTJv dwb /juxKpoOev 'iyovcrav <f>v\\a, 'which had leaves/ — 
'Akovciv with a part, is no longer frequent ; alternative constructions, 
if the substance of the thing heard is stated, are the ace. and inf. and 
especially on, § 70, 2; it takes the ace. and part. in a L. 4. 23 6Va 
rjKovo-apbev yevofieva, A. 7. 12, 3 Jo. 4, 2 Th. 3. 1 1, 2 and incorrectly 
instead of the gen. in A. 9. 4, 26. 14, vide infra. The construction 
with a gen. and part, is also not frequent apart from the Acts : 
Mc. 12. 28 aKOVo-as avrojv o~v^qTOvvT^v, 14. 58, L. 18. 36 b\Xov 
StaTTopevofjievov, Jo. 1. 37, A. 2. 6, 6. 11 etc.; in 22. 7 and 11. 7 
TjKOvcra <fi(Dvrjs Xeyovcrrjs /xot, for which in 9. 4, 26. 14 we have <f>o)V7)v 
Xeyovcrav (in 26. 14 E has the gen.), although <j>(Dvrj refers to the 
speaker and not to the thing spoken. Cp. § 36, 5. — Twoo-kciv has 
this construction in L. 8. 46 eyvwv 8vvap.iv k^tX-qXvOviav dir epiov, 
A. 19. 35, H. 13. 23 ; but liriyiv. Mc. 5. 30 (cp. L. loc. cit.) takes an 
object with an attributive participle, hriyvovs tyjv e£ avrov 8vv. 

k^eXdovcrav. — ElSevai is SO used only in 2 C. 12. 2 oT8a ... dpirayevra 
rbv toiovtov (it takes an adj. without ovra in Mc. 6. 20 etSws avrbv 
dv8pa 8iKatov, where D inserts etvat); elsewhere it has the inf. and most 
frequently on, § 70, 2. — 'Emo-Taor0ai in A. 24. 10 ovra ore KpiTrjv 
eTTio-rdpLevos, cp. 26. 3 where k*BEH omit kirio-r. — Evpto-Keiv commonly 
takes this construction (also classical, Thuc. ii. 6. 3), Mt. 12. 44 
tvpio-Ktt (sc. tov oikov, which D inserts) o~xoXd£ovra, 24. 46 ov ... evpiqcrei 

1 No further instances occur of this use of Cos with verbs of seeing : but cp. 
infra Cos €%0pbv ijye'io-de 2 Th. 3. 15 'as if he were an enemy' (see also § 34, 5) ; 
the meaning therefore must be, 'so far as I see it appears as if you were ' etc. 
(cos softens the reproof). 

2 The classical distinction between the inf. and the part, with this verb (the 
part, denoting rather the actual fact, and the inf. the hearsay report, Kiihner 
ii. 2 629) seems not to exist in the N.T. a v. App. p. 322. 

§ 73- 5. § 74- 1-2-] PARTICIPLE (I) AND (II). 247 

TOLovvra ovt(ds, etc. (occasionally as with the verb ' to see/ the part, 
is more distinct from the object, A. 9. 2 nvds evpy rrjs 68ov 6Vras 

{used in another way it takes the inf., § 69, 4). — Instances of this 
construction are wanting with o-vvievai^aicrOdveo-Oai, fxefxvrjo-dai and 
others; jxavOdveiv (class. fiavOdvco Sia/Se/SA^/xevos ' that I am slan- 
dered') only appears to take it in 1 Tim. 5. 13 a/xa Se kcu dpyal 
jxayOdvovo-Lv TreptepxofJievai, where 7repiepx^ is in any case an additional 
statement, while dpyal is the predicate, with the omission (through 
corruption of the text) of etVcu (fmv6. takes the inf. ibid. 4, Ph. 4. 11, 
Tit. 3. 14). — Verbs of opining strictly take an inf. or a double 
accusative (§ 34, 5) ; but in the latter case the ace. of the predicate 
may be a participle, e'x^ pe 7raprjTrjfX€vov L. 14. 18, dXXr^Xovs rjyovpevoi 
virepexovTas Ph. 2. 3. The participle with cbs may also in classical 
Greek be used with verbs of this class (Hdt, ii. 1 <I>s SovXovs 
7raTpu)tovs lovras ivopufc), as it is in 2 C. 10. 2 rovs Xoyt(ofi€VOvs fjfAas 
cos Kara o-dpKa irepiTraTovvras, but we may equally well have evpeOels 
cos dv&pa)iros Ph. 2. 8, cos k\0pov fjyeicrOe 2 Th. 3. 15, so that one sees 
that in the first passage the participle possesses no peculiar function 
of its own. Cp. § 74, 6. — % 0\i.6koyeiv takes a double accusative in 
Jo. 9. 22 (D inserts etvai) and B,. 10. 9 eav opLoXoyrjcrrjS KVpiov 'Irjcrovv 
1 confessest J. as Lord ' ; accordingly we have also in 1 Jo. 4. 2 T^cr. 
Xp. tvcrapKc eXrjXvOora, unless B is more correct in reading eXrjXvdevai; 
cp. 3 with the reading of « T. Kvpiov £v o\ eX^XvOora, and 2 Jo. 7. — 
Verbs of showing are never found with a participle, § 70, 3. 


1. The participle is found still more abundantly used as an addi- 
tional clause in the sentence, either referring to a noun (or pronoun) 
employed in the same sentence and in agreement with it (the con- 
junctive participle), or used independently and then usually placed 
together with the noun, which is its subject, in the genitive (the 
participle absolute). In both cases there is no nearer definition 
inherent in the participle as such, of the relation in which it stands 
to the remaining assertions of the sentence ; but such a definition 
may be given by prefixing a particle and in a definite way by the 
tense of the participle (the future). The same purpose may be ful- 
filled by the writer, if he pleases, in other ways, with greater 
definiteness though at the same time with greater prolixity: namely, 
by a prepositional expression, by a conditional, causal, or temporal 
sentence etc., and lastly by the use of several co-ordinated principal 

2. The conjunctive participle. — 1 Tim. 1. 13 dyvotov eVo^o-a, cp. 

A. 3. 17 Kara dyvoiav e-irpd^are, per inscitiam : Mt. 6. 27 (L. 12. 25) 
Tis fieptpLviov Svvarai irpoaOdvai k.t.X., f by taking thought, 7 or = eav Kal 

1 v. App. p. 332. 

248 PARTICIPLE (II). [§ 74- 2. 

fiepijjLva. a We may note the occasional omission of the part, wv : 
L. 4. I '\y)crovs 8e irXyjprjs wvevpLaros dyiov v7recrTpeipev, cp. A. 6. 8 a 
quite similar phrase : H. 7. 2, A. 19. 37 ovre UpocrvXovs ovre /2Aacr- 
<f>7]fxovvTas (cp. Kiihner ii. 659), where the part, is concessive or 
adversative: as in Mt. 7. 11 el -u/xets -n-ov-qpol oVtcs ot8are k.t.X., 
'although you are evil' (cp. L. 11. 13). To denote this sense more 
clearly classical Greek avails itself of the particle KaC-vrep, which is rare 
in the N.T.: Ph. 3. 4 Katirep eyco eyuiv TrerroiOrja-LV k.t.X,, H. 5. 8, 7. 5, 
12. 17 : 2 P. 1. 12 (Herm. Sim. viii. 6. 4, 11. 1); it also uses kclI 
ravra, which in the N.T. appears in H. 11. 12 ; a less classical use is 
kcutoi with a part., likewise only found in H. 4. 3 (before a participle 
absolute), and a still less classical word is Kanotye (in classical Greek 
the ye is detached and affixed to the word emphasized), which how- 
ever is only found with a finite verb, and therefore with a sort of 
paratactical construction: Jo. 4. 2 (koItoi C), A. 14. 17 (kciltol 
k°ABC*); in A. 17. 27 Kaiye 'indeed 9 appears to be the better reading 
(KatroLye », Kairoi AE), here a participle follows. Cp. § 77, 4 and 14. 
— -Conditional participle: L. 9. 25 ti (IxfyeXeirai avdpuxros Kep8rjo-as rbv 
Kocrfxov oXov, =Mt. 16. 26 edv KepSrjcrrj. Causal : Mt. 1. 1 9 'I wcrr) <£..., 
St/catos &v i<al pLYj OeXwv avrrjv Seiy/martcrai, efSovXrjdrj k.t.X., — ore St/cotto? 
^v, or 8td to 8'lkolios elvai, or (in class. Greek) are (otov, oca) 8. wv, 
particles which are no longer found in the N.T. Final participle : 
the classical use of the fut. part, in this sense in the N.T. apart from 
Lc. (A. 8. 27 eXrjXv6eb 7rpocrKvurj(r(x)v, 22. 5, 24. 17, also 25. 13 accord- 
ing to the correct reading do-irao-6p,evoL, § 58, 4) occurs only in 
Mt. 27. 49 (epxerat owwi/ : but K* has owat, D /cat crwcrefc). More 
commonly this function is performed by the pres. part., § 58, 4, as in 
L. 7. 6 eirepixpev <plXovs o eKavTovTapyr^s Xeyuv aiJTa), unless (Viteau, 
p. 186) another construction with kindred meaning is introduced, 
such as in Mt. 11. 2 irepuf/as etirev, 1 C. 4. 17 e-nrepuf/a TipioQeoy, 6? 
avapLvrjcreL, or the infinitive, which is the commonest construction of 
all, § 69, 2. — Then the most frequent use of this participle is to state 
the manner in which an action takes place, its antecedents and its 
accompaniments, in which case it would sometimes be possible to use 
a temporal sentence in its place, and sometimes not, viz. if the state- 
ment is of too little importance to warrant the latter construction. 
For instance, in Mc. 1. 7 ov ovk elpd iKavbs Kvipas Xvo-ai rbv IpLavra, no 
one would have said tTreiSdv Kvipm; nor again in A. 21. 32 os 7ra/)a- 
Aa/3a)v o-TpaTiwTas Kark8pafxev e7r' avrov would anyone have used such 
a phrase as erreiSr) irapeXafiev, since the part, in this passage (as Xa|3«v 
often does in class. Greek) corresponds to our ' with ' and admits of 
no analysis (see also Jo. 18. 3, which Viteau compares with Mt. 26. 47, 
where we have /xer avrov-, Mt. 25. 1). Similarly $£poiv = ' with ' in 
Jo. 19. 39; <?x wv j which is also very common in class. Greek, occurs 
in L. 2. 42 in D, besides in Mt. 15. 30 with the addition of p.ed f 
lainw (aywi/ occurs nowhere). While therefore these classical 
phrases with the exception of Xafiuv are disappearing, \ap<6v is also 
used in another way together with other descriptive participles, 
which according to Hebrew precedent become purely pleonastic 
(Viteau, p. 191) - . & Mt. 13. 31 kokko) <riva7re<os, ov Xafiav avOpnyiros 

a b v. App. p. 322. 

§ 74- 2-3.] PARTICIPLE (II). 249 

€o-7r€tp€v, and again in 33 {vpy rjv Xa/3ov<ra yvv-q ev€Kpv\J/ev, 14. 19 
Xaficbv rovs aprovs evXoyrjcrev, 21. 35, 39 etc.; SO also dvao-Tds (after 
the Hebr. DTip) L. 15. 18 dvaards 7ropevoro /xat, ibid. 20, A. 5. 17, 8. 27 
etc.; Mt. 13. 46 aireXQoiv TT€7rpaK€V (cp. 25. 18, 25), irop€v8€is 25. 16 

(both verbs representing the Hebr. *pH), cp. infra 3. — The classical 
use of dpx6p<€vos 'at the beginning,' reXevruv 'in conclusion,' is 
not found ; but we find as in class. Greek dp|dp.€voi a7ro 'lepovcraXrjpi 
L. 24. 47, a. dirh Twi/ irp€(rfivT€p(ov ' Jo.' 8. 9 ' beginning with,' with 
which in the passage of 'Jo.' we have in the ordinary text (D 
is different) the unclassical addition of 4ws rcov eo-xdrwv, as also 
in A. 1. 22 dp£d/A€Vos cwrb rov paTTTLO-paros } Io)dvov ax/01 (ea)S BD) 
k.t.X. (L. 23. 5, Mt. 20. 8). 'Ap^dpevos is used pleonastically in 
A. 11. 4 dp^dfjLevos Uerpos i^ertOero avTols KaOe^fjs, with a certain 
reference to KaOe^s and occasioned by that word ; cp. on rjp^aro 
with inf. § 69, 4 note 1, on p. 227. — With tt poo-dels etirev 'said further 
L. 19. 11, cp. TTpoorr iOeo-0 au with the inf. (a Hebraism) § 69, 4. 

3. Conjunctive participle and co-ordination. — The pleonastic use of 
Xa/3eiv etc. (supra 2) does not necessarily require the participle, and 
the finite verb (with /cat) may also be employed in this way — a con- 
struction which exactly corresponds to the Hebrew exemplar, and 
which in Greek would only be regarded as intolerable when con- 
tinued at some length. In the LXX. we have Gen. 32. 22 dvacnds Se 
ttjv vvktcl €t<eivr)v, k'XafSe rds 8vo yvvatKas . . . Kal Steflr] ..., (2^) Kal eXafiev 
avrovs Kal 8te/3r] k.t.X., which for the most part agrees word for word 
with the Hebrew, except that a perfect agreement would have also 
required Kal dveo-TTj ... Kal eXa/3ev at the beginning, which was felt to 
be intolerable even by this translator. The N.T. writers have also 
in the case of this particular verb usually preferred the participle ; 
co-ordination is only rarely found as in A. 8. 26 dvdo-rrjdi Kal iropevov 
(here also D has dvao-rds iropevO^Ti; the MSS. often give dvdvra with- 
out Kal with asyndeton, A. 9. 11 B, 10. 13 Vulgate, 20 D* Vulg., so 
in 11. 7; cp. § 79, 4); L. 22. 17 Xdf3ere tovto Kal hapepiaare. In 

the introduction to a speech we find already in Hebrew ^fcK? used 
with a finite verb such as ' asked ' or ' answered ' : the Greek equi- 
valent for this is Xeyw, numerous instances of which appear in the 
N.T. after aVoKptWcr&u, XaXetv, Kpdfav, irapaKaXelv etc. But in 
Hebrew the word ' answered ' is also succeeded by ^^l (lxx. Kal 
€C7T€v), and the same construction occurs in the N.T. e.g. Jo. 20. 28 
d7r€Kpt0rj Oupds Kal etirev, 14. 23, 18. 30 (so almost always in John's 
Gospel, unless direKp. is used without an additional word), L. 17. 20; 
beside which we have aTreKpiO-q Xeywv Me. 15. 9 (D diroKpiOels X'eyei), 
A. 15. 13 (not in D), direKpiOrjorav Xeyovcrat Mt. 25. 9, cp. 37, 44 f. 
(Jo. 12. 23), and by far the most predominant formula except in 
John dwoKpLdels ahrev (twice in the second half of the Acts 19. 15 [not 
in D], 25. 9). We never find diroKpivopevos el-rev, any more than we 
find direKpiOri etVwi/, since the answer is reported as a fact, and there- 
fore in the aorist, while the verb of saying which is joined with it in 
the participle gives the manner of the answer, and must therefore be 

250 PARTICIPLE (II). [§ 74- 3. 

a present participle. John (and Paul) have also the following com- 
binations: Jo. 1. 25 Koi rjpioT7]crav avrbv /cat enrov avTyt (text doubtful), 
Mt. 15. 23 rjpioTtov Xeyovres, and SO John himself has rjpuTijcrav Xey. 
4. 31, 9. 2 [om. Aey. D al.] etc., 9. 28 eXot86py)crav avrov /cat c^av, 12. 44 
eKpagev /cat elirev (D e/cpafe /cat eAeyei/), cp. D in L. 8. 28 (but Mt. 8. 29 
has €Kpagav Xeyovres, SO 14. 30 etc.; Kpdgas Aeyet Mc. 5. 7 [etW D], 
Kpdgas e'Aeye 9. 24 [Aeyet a better reading in D] ; e/cpavyacrav [v.l. 
efcpafoi/] Aey. Jo, 19. 12 [without Aey. n* al.], 18. 40 [without Aey. bee 
Chrys.]) ; Jo. 13. 21 efiaprvp-qcre /cat etVre (A. 13. 2 2 direv fiapTvprjora^ ; 
Jo. 1. 32 ipLaprvpyio-ev Aeyau', but without Aey. N*e) ; R. 10. 20 
aVoroA/za /cat Aeyet; Jo. 18. 25 rjpvrjcraTO /cat et?re, Mt. 26. 70 etc. ^/ov. 
Aeywv, but A. 7. 35 ov rjpvrjcTavro elirovTes. 1 The tense in the last 
instance etVoi/re? is occasioned by the fact that rjpv. is not here a 
verbum dicendi ; accordingly we find the same tense elsewhere, 
Jo. 11. 28 £<fxA)vr)o-cv ttjv d8eX<fir)v (called) etVowa (with the words), 
= /cat etrrev 18. 33; A. 22. 24 e/ceAevcrei> eio~dye(r6ai . . . etVas, 21. 14 
r}<rvya<rapLev et7rovTeg, L. 5. 13 7]\f/aro elircov, 22. 8 aVecrretAei' et7iw (Mt. 
inversely has Trefixpas etirev 'sent with the words'; 11. 3 -n-epupas Stot 
twv paOrfTuv €ltt€v is rather different ' he bade them say '). By the 
use of the aorist participle nothing is stated with regard to the 
sequence of time (cp. § 58, 4), any more than it is by the use of 
the equivalent co-ordination with /cat: L. 15. 23 fayovTes exxfcpavOwpev, 
= D <£ayw/z€i/ /cat €v<j>p. With the finite verb efa-ev we do indeed 
occasionally find Xeyuv (L. 12. 16, 20. 2; see § 24 s v. Ae'yetv), but 
other participles, which express something more than merely saying, 
are always aorist participles as in the instances quoted hitherto : 
irapprio-Lao-dpLevoL e. A. 13. 46, TTpocrev^dfievoc e. 1. 24, since the two 
verbs, which denote one and the same action, are assimilated to each 
other. Between two participles of this kind a connecting copula is 
inserted : Kpdfovres /cat Aeyovres Mt. 9. 27, a7rora^dp J evos /cat eiir&v 
A. 18. 21 (the f3 text is different), Paul rather harshly has x a W MV 
/cat /SXeiruv Col. 2. 5 meaning ' since I see'; where no such close 
homogeneity exists between them, the participles may follow each 
other with asyndeton, and often are bound to do so: A. 18. 23 
e^yjXOev, $L€px6fA€VOS rr)v TaXaTLKrjV x^P av ) vT7]pi£a)V rovs pLaOrjrds, — 
egrjXOev /cat Sir/px^ro (§ 58, 4) orTrjpifrav (the latter part, being sub- 
ordinated as the sense requires): 19. 16 e<f>aX6pLevos 6 av6p(owos eV 
avrovs ..., KaraKVpievcras d/JL^orepcov io-yy(rev Kar' avTuv, = e<jyrjXero /cat 
/c.t.A., whereas the reading /cat /cara/c. (k*HLP) connects KaraKvpieveiv 
with e^aXeo-Oai in a way that is not so good ; in 18 22 KareXOaiv els 
KatcrapetaT/, dva/3ds /cat d<T7racrdpLevos rovs jmaO^rds, KarefBrj els 'Avrt- 
oxetaj/ a second /cat before dvafids would be possible but ugly : the 
sentence may be resolved into KarrjXOev els K., dva/3ds Se /cat /c.t.A. 
These instances of accumulation of participles, which are not 
uncommon in the Acts (as distinguished from the simpler manner of 

1 Among remarkable instances of co-ordination belongs ZaKaxpev teal ifiadvvev 
L. 6. 48, as the meaning is 'dug deep'; ftadtivas would therefore be more 
appropriate. But the lxx. , following the Hebrew, has the same construction, 
ir&xwe /cat edpa/mep Judges 13. IO (Winer). — Also Jo. 8. 59 iKpij^rj /cat t^rjkdev 4k 
rod iepov, = iKpTufir) OjcXdibv 'withdrew from their sight '(?). 

§ 74- 3-5.] PARTICIPLE {II.). 2 $l 

the Gospels 1 ), are never devoid of a certain amount of stylistic 
refinement, which is absent from the instances of accumulation in 
the epistolary style of St. Paul, which consist rather of a mere 
stringing together of words. 

4. A thoroughly un-Greek usage, though common in the LXX., is 
the addition to a finite verb of the participle belonging to that verb, 
in imitation of the infinitive which is so constantly introduced in 
Hebrew, and which in other cases is rendered in more correct Greek 
by the dative of the verbal substantive, § 38, 3. The N.T. only has 
this part, in O.T. quotations : Mt. 13. 14 f3Xs7rovTes /^Ac^ere, A. 7. 34 
I8(bv €t8ov i H. 6. 14. 

5. Participle absolute. — Of the absolute participial constructions 
the classical language makes the most abundant use of the genitive 
absolute : the use of the accusative absolute is in its way as regular, 
but is not found very frequently : the nominative absolute (as in 
Hdt. vii. 157 dXr)s yivofievrj r) 'EAAas, x €c P fAcydXrj crwdyeTai) is anti- 
quated and was never a common construction. The N.T. has only 
preserved the use of the genitive in this way; since the so-called 
instances of the nom. absolute to be found there are really no con- 
struction at all, but its opposite, i.e. anacoluthon (see § 79, 7). Now 
the use of the gen. abs. in the regular classical language is limited to 
the case where the noun or pronoun to which the participle refers 
does not appear as the subject or have any other function in the sen- 
tence ; in all other cases the conjunctive participle must be used. 
The New Testament writers on the other hand — in the same way in 
which they are inclined to detach the infinitive from the structure of 
the sentence, and to give it a subject of its own in the accusative, 
even where this is already the main subject of the sentence (§72, 2 
and 3) — show a similar tendency to give a greater independence to 
participial additional clauses, and adopt the absolute construction in 
numerous instances, even where classical writers would never have 
admitted it as a special license. 2 Mt. 9. 18 ravra avrov XaXovvros 
avTots, l8ov apx<i>v ... irpoo-eKvvei eyuTw ; cp. 10 (where it is more excus- 
able), 18. 24, 24. 3, a 26. 6, 27. 17,% all which cases the noun which is 
the subject of the participle appears in the dative in the main sentence 
(in 5. 1 avroy is omitted in B ; in 8. 1 according to N*KL al. we 
should read Karaf3dvri 8e avrw ... rjKoXovdrjo-av avrw, likewise grossly 
incorrect, cp. inf. ; a similar v.l. appears ibid. 5, 28, 21. 23, but in 
8. 28 K* gives a correct construction reading eXOovrw avr&v); so also 
Mc. 13. 1, L. 12. 36, 14. 29 (D gives a different and correct constr.), 
17. 12 (BL om. avrtp; D is quite different), 22. 10, Jo. 4. 51 (many 
vll.), A. 4. 1 (D om. avrois). Again we have in Mt. 18. 25 fir) 
c)(ovtos avrox &7ro8ovvai,, e/ceAewei/ avTov TTpaOrjvai (the accusative 
following); SO Mc. 5. 18, 9. 28 (v.l. tlo-eXOovra avrbv ... eV^pwTWv 

1 Occasionally, however, it is found there as well : Mt. 14. 19 KeXefoas (tfZ 
^K^Xevcrej/) ... Xa^wv ... dva^Xexpas, 27. 48 5pa/i<bv ... /ccti Aa/3d>j> ... TrX^cas re (re om. 
D) ... /cat Trepideis. 

2 On the same usage in the lxx. see Viteau, p. 199 f. (e.g. Gen. 18. 1, Ex. 
5- 20). a b c v> App# p 322. 

252 PARTICIPLE (II.). [§ 74. 5-6. 

avrov), 10. 17, 11. 27 (irpbs avrov), 13. 3, L. 9. 42, 15. 20, 18. 40, 
22. 53 (eV J/xe), Jo. 8. 30 (ets avrov), A. 19. 30 (curroi/ om. D), 21. 17 

(the ft text is different), 25. 7, 28. 17 (71-/00S a-uToi>s), 2 C. 12. 21 (v.l. 
eA#0FTa fxe, and without the second /ze). If the accusative is depen- 
dent on a preposition, and the participle precedes the accusative, it 
is of course impossible to make it into a conjunctive participle. — If 
the word in question follows in the genitive, the result is the same 
incorrect pleonasm of the pronoun as is seen in the case of the dative 
in the example quoted above from Mt. 8. 1 with the reading of K* : 
Mt. 6. 3 crov iroiovvros eXe7)fjLocrvv7]V fxrj yvura) tj dpiwrepd crov (Herm. 
Sim. ix. 14. 3 Kare<p6ap/jLev(ov ?y/xwv ... rr]v farjv rjjJLcov), cp. 5. I if avrw 
is omitted (with B, vide supra). The instance which intrinsically is 
the harshest, and at the same time the least common, is that where 
the word in question is afterwards used as the subject, as in Mt. 1. 18 

[xvrjcrrevOeio-rjs rrjs jJLrjrpbs avrov Maptas tw Tgxt?^, irplv rj crvveXOetv 

avrovs tvpedr], an anacoluthon which after all is tolerable, and for 
which classical parallels may be found (Kuhner ii. 666); but A. 22. 17 
is an extremely clumsy sentence, eyevero 8e /jlol viroarrpexpavn els 
'lepovv., [/cat] TrpocrevxofJLevov jjlov ev to> te/oa), yevecrOac \xe ev e.KO~rdcrei 
(i<al should apparently be removed, because if it is kept the connec- 
tion of the dat. and gen. remains inexplicable). Cp. also L. 8. 35 D; 
Herm. Yis. i. 1. 3 iropevofxevov /jlov els Kovfxas Kal So£d£ovros (e86£a(ov 
as) ..., irepiiraruiv dcl>v7rva>o-a. The gen. abs. stands after the subject 
in H. 8. 9 O.T., cp. Viteau, p. 210 (the meaning is 'in the day when 
I took'); it has the same position after the dative in 2 C. 4. 18 ^/xty, 
pLi] o-K07rovvTa)v fjfjLwv (but D*FGr read with an anacoluthon firj 
o-Koirovvres, perhaps rightly), Herm. Yis. iii. 1. 5 <f>piK7) /jlol 7rpoo-rjX0ev, 
p,6vov pLov oVtos. — The omission of the noun or pronoun which agrees 
with the part., if it can be readily supplied, is allowable in the N.T. 
as in the classical language : Mt. 17. 14 kBZ (C etc. insert airjw), 26 
(with many variants), L. 12. 36 eXOovros Kal Kpovo-avros, A. 21. 31 
fyrovvruv (ibid. 10 with fj/jLwv inserted as a v.l.), etc. Another 
instance of the omission of a noun with the participle occurs in Attic 
where the participle is impersonal; this is a case for the employment 
of the accusative absolute, e£6v, vtrdpypv, irpoo-rer uy pLevov etc., followed 
by an infinitive. But in the N.T. k%6v is only used as a predicate 
with an ellipse of ecrrc, A. 2. 29, 2 C. 12. 4 (ovk egovros appears in 
papyri, Pap. Oxyrh. ii. p. 263), and even Luke is so far from employ- 
ing a passive part, in this way that he prefers a construe, arising out of 
nom. with inf. in A. 23. 30 p.rjVvOeiorrjS Se /xot e7ri/3ovXyjs els rbv dvSpa 
eo-eo-Oat, instead of saying fxrjvvOev e7rt/3ovXrjv ecr. (Buttm. 273). The 
solitary remaining instance, rather obscured, of the ace. abs. is rvyov 
< perhaps' in 1 0. 16. 6, L. 20. 13 D, A. 12. 15 D. 

6. Particles used with a participle. — It has already been noticed 
above in 2 that the particular relation in which the additional parti- 
cipial clause (whether absolute or conjunctive) stands to the principal 
sentence may be rendered perceptible by the insertion of a particle 
(/couVep, Kal ravra, Kairoi). This usage is but slightly represented in 
the N.T.; since even of the temporal use of a^a to denote simultan- 
eousness or immediate sequence (rpLpwv a/xa e<f>-q ' while rubbing ') it 
contains no real instance (A. 24. 26 a/xa Kal IXttl^v is * withal in the 

§74- 6. §7S 1-^.] PARTICIPLE (II). NEGATIVES. 253 

expectation/ 27. 40 a/m avkvres ' while they at the same time also/ 
Col. 4. 3 Trpoo-evxoptvoi afia koX irepl rjfjion', < at the same time for us 
also'; cp. dfia 8e Kal with imperat. in Philem. 22)* A more frequent 
particle with a participle is the simple a>s (cocnrep in A. 2. 2, denoting 
comparison; wo-et 'as though' R 6. 13); however the participle is 
for the most part used with o>s (as with oW in the passage of 
Romans) in just the same way as a noun of any kind may be used 
with these particles, cp. §§ 34, 5 and 78, 1, and of constructions 
which may really be reckoned as special participial constructions 
with (I)?, many are entirely or almost entirely wanting in the N.T. 
Thus we never find d>s with the ace. abs. (ws tovs Oeovs KcUAtcrra 
€t86ras ' in the belief that ') ; and again ws with a future participle 
occurs only in H. 13. 17 aypvirvovo-iv m Xoyov &7ro8a>crovT€s 'as persons 
who' (add Mc. 11. 13 <I>s evprjo-uv Origen, minusc. 700, afq, cp. Lat. 
quasi paraturi L. 9. 5 2 for wcrre eTot/xaa-at, «B also have o>s). In all these 
instances ws with a participle gives a reason on the part of the actor or 
speaker. The use of this construction without an ace. abs. and with a 
participle other than the future is more common: L. 16. 1 and 23. 14 'on 
the assertion that,' ' on the plea of,' so also in A. 23. 15, 20, 27. 30 (here 
with 7rpo(j)d(r€L prefixed) ; see also A. 3. 12 rj/Jbtv tl drevi^ere, ws 
7r€7roir)K6crLV 'as though we had,' 1 C. 7. 25 yvuipaqv 6Y8a>//,fc ws rjXerjfjLevos, 
6 as one who,' 'in the conviction that I am one'; 2 C. 5. 20 (gen. abs.)/ 
H. 12. 27 ; A. 20. 13 ((3 text) d>s fieWuv ... 'since he said that'; in 
the negative we have oi>x ws 'not as if A. 28. 19, 2 Jo. 5. We also 
find abbreviated expressions where the participle is dropped : 
Col. 3. 23 o eav 7roifJT€, €K \j/v)(fjs ZpyafccrOe, m tw Kvpt(p (sc. ipya^opievoL 
avro) Kal ovk dv6p(x>7roiS, 1 C. 9. 26, 2 C. 2. 17, E. 6. 7, 1 P. 4. II, 
R. 13. 13 ws ev fj/jiepa = o)S rjfiepas ovcrrjs, 2 Th. 2. 2 oY eVtcrroA^s, cos 
6Y rjfxiov, SC. yeypa/z/zeV^s, or rather = ws tj/jlcov yeypa^>6ro)V avrrjv, G. 3. 16 
etc. Classical Greek has similar phrases. — "Av with the participle 
has quite gone out of use, 1 as it has with the infinitive. — Where a 
participial clause is placed first, the principal clause which follows 
may be introduced by a ovtms referring back to the previous clause; 
but this classical usage is found only in the Acts : 20. 11 o/jliXyjo-qls 
..., ovro)S e^rjXOev, 27. 10. 


1. The distinction between the two negatives, the objective ov and 
the subjective jxrj, in classical Greek is to some extent rather compli- 
cated ; on the other hand in the koivtj of the N.T. all instances may 
practically be brought under the single rule, that ov negatives the 
indicative, jjufj the other moods, including the infinitive and parti- 

2. In principal clauses with the indicative ov is used ; the prohibi- 
tive future makes no exception to the rule : ov cfrovevo-ets Mt. 5. 2 1 

1 'fis av with a gen. abs. in Barn. 6. 11 is different ; cp. the modern Greek 
(<b)<rdv 'as, 5 Hatzidakis Einl. in d. ngr. Gr. 217 ; infra § 78, 1. 

a b v. App. p. 323. 

254 NEGA TIVES. [§ 75. 2-3* 

O.T. (§ 64, 3). 1 But in an interrogative sentence both ov and prf are 
employed (as in classical Greek) : ov (or ov pi], § 64, 5) if an affirma- 
tive answer is expected, firj if a negative ; so in L. 6. 39 p.ryri SvvaTai 
rvcjjXbs rv<f)\bv oSrjyelv ('is it possible that...?' Arts. Certainly 
not), ovx«. dfKporepoi els fioOwov efAirecrovvTcu (Ans. Yes, certainly). Of 
course the negative used depends on the answer expected and not on 
the actual answer given: thus in Mt. 26. 25 Judas asks like the other 
Apostles (22) firjTL eyw el fu, pa/3 [31 ('it surely is not If), and receives 
the answer o-v etiras. 2 (In L. 17. 9, according to AD al., the answer 
of the first speaker is appended with the words ov &>ko>.) Mrj-n, 
instead of pr\ is a very favourite form in questions of this kind, just 
as ovyi takes the place of ov in those which expect a positive answer; 
but the simple forms are also used. In questions introduced by pj 
the verb itself may also be negatived, as in classical Greek, of course 
with ov : this produces p) ... ov (and an affirmative answer is natur- 
ally now expected) : R 10. 17 p) ovk r^Kovo-av 'can it be that they 
have not heard it?' (Ans. Certainly they have), 1 C. 11. 22 al. 
(only in the Pauline Epp.). — Mtjtc is further found in the elliptical 
fjLTjTLye 1 C. 6. 3 =7rocra) ye pdXXov 'much more ' (prj rt ye 8rj Tots Oeots 
Demosth. 2. 23)." 

3. Subordinate clauses with the indicative. — The chief point to 
notice here is that el with the indicative (supposed reality) takes the 
negative ov in direct contradistinction to the classical language, as it 
even does in one instance where the indicative denotes something con- 
trary to fact : Mt. 26. 24 = Mc. 14. 2 1 KaXbv rjv airrcp, el ovk (si non) eyev- 
vrjdy] 6 avdpayiros eKetvos. Elsewhere however these suppositions 
contrary to fact take prj: Jo. 15. 22 et pr) rjXOov ..., dpaprlav ovk 
ecxoo-av, 24, 9. 33, 18. 30, 19. it, Mt. 24. 22 = Mc. 13. 20, A. 26. 32, 
R 7. 7, no distinction being made as to whether et jmf) means ' apart 
from the case where ' (nisi) or ' supposing the case that not y (si non, 
as in Jo. 15. 22, 24). Moreover in other cases where the meaning is 
nisi el pr) is used (cp. Kuhner ii. 2 744), viz. either where, as generally 
happens, no verb follows the particle, as in Mt. 5. 13 eh ovdev el pr) 
/3krj9r}vcu (and in et 8e prj ye, § 77, 4), or where a verb is used, which 
is generally in the pres. indie, as in el pbrj rives elonv G. 1. 7, cp. 
§ 65, 6. But in all other cases we find el ov (even in L. 11. 8 et koI 
ov &ooret for eav kgu pr) 8o>, § 65, 5) ; an abnormal instance is 1 Tim. 
6. 3 et rts IrepoStSacTKaAet kgu /xt) TrpocreyeTai k.t.X. (literary language; 
et .,. ov appears in 3. 5, 5. 8), and another is the additional clause in 
D in L. 6. 4 et 8e p,r) ot8as. — Similar to this is the use of ov in relative 
sentences with the indicative; exceptions are (1 Jo. 4. 3 6 prj 
opoXoyel a wrong reading for o Xvet), Tit. 1. 11 ScSdo-Kovres a pr) Set, 
2 R 1. 9 (5 pr) irdpeo-nv Tavra, tv<£>X6s ecrrtv (literary language ; there 
is no question here of definite persons or things, Kuhner ii. 2 745). 
In affirmations introduced by on (or ws), also in temporal and causal 

1 Still Clem. Horn. iii. 69 has firjd^va juucrricrere (in the middle of positive futures 
expressing command). 

2 Still Jo. 21. 5 fi-fj n irpo(T(f)ayiov ^x €Te » hardly lends itself to the meaning 
' certainly not I suppose ' (cp. also the use of this negative in 4. 33, 7. 26). 

a v. App. p. 323. 

§ 75- 3-5.] NEGA TIVES. 255 

sentences with the indie, the use of ov is a matter of course ; EL 9. 17 
€7T€t /jLYjiroTe (or firj rore) lo^ei, ore £rj 6 StaOefxevos is an interrogative 
sentence (Theophylact), and the only exception to this rule which 
appears to be established is Jo. 3. 18 6 p) irLcrrevayv 7]8rj KtKpnai, on 
/my] 7r€7ri(TT€VK€v ct's to ovofjLOL k.t.A., unless indeed, the late form otl pafj 
should be taken as an indication of the spuriousness of the subor- 
dinate clause which is omitted by Chrys. and is very tautological. 
(1 Jo. 5. 10, however, is similar, but here on ov is used). 1 — After 
firjirays or fxr) expressing apprehension, if the verb itself is negatived, 
an ov must be inserted before the conjunctive : Mt. 25. 9 pftproTz ovk 
apKeo-rj (cp. the v.l. in the same passage, infra 6) ; ^o/3ovpLat p/ ... ov 
2 C. 12. 20. 

4. The infinitive. — M^ is used throughout, since in H. 7. 11 it is 
not the inf. but only the idea Kara ttjv rd^iv 'Aapcov which is negatived 
(cp. in class. Greek Lys. 13. 62 d p.ev ov 7roXXol [ = 6\[yoc] ^o-av, 
Kuhner ii. 2 747 f.). We may particularly note the use of //.?/ accord- 
ing to classical precedent (Kiihner 761 f.) in certain instances after 
verbs containing a negative idea (a pleonastic use according to our way 
of thinking) : L. 20. 27 ot avrtXeyovres (AP al.j kBCDL read Xeyovres 
as in Mt. and Mc.) dvdo-Tao-Lv y.i\ thai (avTiXeyetv here only takes an 
inf.), 22. 34 €ws t/hs dirapvrjo-rj firj elSevat jxe (fxe dw. ci6\ tfBLT ; dirapv. 
not elsewhere with an inf.), cp. 1 Jo. 2. 22 6 dpyov/xevos otl 'I^o-. ovk 
eo-Tiv 6 Xpio-ros (as in Demosth. 9. 54 dpv. ws ovk etVt tolovtol), 
H. 12. 19 TrapYjTiqo-avro [xrj (om. tf*P) it pocrTeOyji 'at, Gk 5. 7 tls v/ias 
€V€Koi//ev dXrjdeia p,r) irdOeo-dat • (ky Koirreord at takes rov eXOelv in 
E. 15. 22, cp. Kuhner 768 c). But in H. 11. 24 we have rjpvijcraTo 
('scorned') XeyecrOac ; and KcoXvetv is regularly used without a subse- 
quent /x??, a construction which is also admissible in classical Greek,, 
Kuhner 767 f.; see however § 71, 2 and 3. 

5. The participle. — Here the tendency of the later language to 
use firj is noticeable even in writers like Plutarch; the Attic 
language on the other hand lays down rules as to the particular 
negative required according to the meaning of the participle in indi- 
vidual cases. Hardly any exceptions to the N.T. usage occur in Mt. 
and John : Mt. 22. 1 1 efSev dvOpcoirov ovk kvh&vp,kvov evSvpia ydptov, — 
os ovk evedeSvro (Attic Greek would therefore have ov ; but C 3 I) have 
pLrj perhaps correctly, cp. 12), Jo. 10. 12 o puo-Ourbs kcu ovk wv Troipj]v 
(no definite person is referred to, therefore Attic would use prj) : in 
this passage ov is no doubt a Hebraism, since in the case of a parti- 
ciple with the article the lxx. render ^ by ov, as in G. 4. 27 O.T. 
f) ov TtKTovora k.t.X., E. 9. 25 (Viteau, p. 217 f.). There are more 
exceptions in Luke : 6. 42 avrbs ... ov fiXerruv (D is different), A. 7. 5 
ovk oVros olvtw TeKVov, 26. 22 ovftev zktos Xeymv, 28. 17 ovSev ... TTOLrjcras 
(all correct Attic Greek). Ovx 6 rvx<f>v ' no ordinary person ' explains 
itself (it is the single idea in tvx&v which is negatived, supra 4) 

1 'E7ret fly instead of iirel oi) is an established usage in Clem. Horn. (ix. 14, 
xviii. 6), and for many instances of otl firj, iirel jur/ in Philostratus see W. Schmidt 
Atticism, iv. 93.* ** v. App. p. 332. 

256 NEGA TIVES. [§ 75. 5-7. 

A. 19. 11, 28. 2; there is a different reason for ov in 28. 19 (1 Th. 
2. 4) ovx ws e'xwi/ k.t.X. ('I have not done this as one who' etc.). 
Instances of ov in Paul (Hebrews and Peter) : (E. 9. 25 O.T. [vide 
supra] rbv ov Xabv k.t.X. after the Hebrew, = toi/ ovk ovtcl A. in class. 
Greek; cp. 1 P. 2. 10), 2 C. 4. 8 f. dXi/36pevoi aAA' ov o-Tevox^pov- 
jievoi k.t.X. (here again it is the single idea in o-revox. which is nega- 
tived), Ph. 3. 3 kolI ovk kv crapKi 7T€7roi0oT€s, Col. 2. 19 Kal ov KparQtv 
k.t.X. (elsewhere kv1 p,rj is used, as in L. 1. 20 eo-g o-lo)7T(dv Kal fir) 
Svvdptvos XaXrjo-at) 1 : H. 11. I wpaypaTuv ov j3Xeiropkv(})v ( = Att. &v 
av tls fir) opa), 35 ov irpocrfte^dpevoi (correctly) : 1 P. 1. 8 ov ovk 186vt€S 
dya7raT€ correctly, but the writer continues with els ov dpTi p,r) 6pa>vTes 
TTio-TevovTes 8e, where it is artificial to wish to draw a distinction 
hetween the two negatives. With ws (with which Attic prefers to 
use ov, Kiihner 755) we have 1 C. 9. 26 ws ovk do^Aws ... u>s ovk dkpa 
Sepcov, cp. Col. 3. 23 (§ 74, 6). 

6. Combined negatives. — For pr) ov vide supra 2 and 3 ; for ov pr\ 
{frequently used) see § 64, 5, with the conj. or fut. indie; once we 
find as a v.l. prj-iroTe ov prj Mt. 25. 9 BCD al, vide supra 3 ad fin. — 
The only examples of ov ... ov, ov ... p,rj neutralizing each other are 
1 C. 12. 15 ov Trapa tovto ovk €cttiu €k tov o-co/^aros (cp. prj ... firj in 
L. 14. 29 D, iva prjiroTe . . . pr) lo-xyo-rj), A. 4. 20 ov SvvdpeOa ... pr) 
AaAeti/ (classical usage corresponds), apart from the instances where 
the second negative stands in a subordinate clause, viz. oiSels - b\ 
(class. oo-Tis) ov (but here we do not find the classical practice of 
directly connecting ovSeis with, and assimilating it to, the relative, 
Kiihner 919, 5) Mt. 10. 26, L. 12. 2, otf...3s ov Mt. 24. 2 al.; the 
same meaning is expressed by giving an interrogative form to the 
principal clause and omitting the first negative (Buttmann 305), tls 
io-Tiv ... os ov A. 19. 35. — The classical combination of negatives ov 
{prj) . . . ovdeis (prj8as) and the like, to intensify the negation, is not 
excessively frequent : the instances are Mc. 15. 4 ovk diroKplvrj ovBev; 
5 ovk€Tl ovSev d7r€Kpt0rj^lj. 10. 19 ovfev .. ov pr) (not in D), 23. 53 ovk 
rjv ovSeTrui ovfttls, A. 8. 39 ovk ... ovKeTi, Mc. 11. 14 /x^Ken ... pr)8els, etc. 
(ov8eTTOTe pbob ov8tls Herm. Mand. iii. 3) ; on the other hand we find 
(contrary to the classical rule, Kiihner 758, but cp. 760, 4) ovx 

Up7rdo~€L TIS JO. 10. 28, OV ... V7TO TtVOS 1 C. 6. 12, Ov8\ TOV TTOLTepO, TIS 
€7TL-yiV(DO-K€L Mt. 11. 2J, 12. I9, OVT€ ... TIS A. 28. 21, OV SwYjCTYj €TL 
OLKOVOpeiV L. 16. 2, OV ... 7TOT€ 2 P. 1. 2I. & 

7. Form and position of the negative. — The strengthened form 
ovxs besides being used in questions (supra 2), is also specially 
frequent where the negative is independent = ' no,' L. 1. 60, ox>xh 
Aeyw vplv 12. 51, 13. 3, 5 (the opposite to which is val [Attic never 
has vai\i\ Aeyw vplv 7. 26; ov X. vpiv would not have been quite 
clear, though ov also appears elsewhere for 'no, 5 Mt. 13. 29 etc., and 
in a strengthened form ov ov like vat vaL, 2 C. 1. 17 2 ); the longer 

1 In E. 5. 4 t<x ovk avr]Kovra is only a v.l. for a ovk dviJKev, see § 63, 4. In 1 C. 
11. 17 read ovk iiraivQ) (with a stop before it, and Trapayye\\<a). 

2 Hence, apparently, the wrong reading in Mt. 5. 37 'io-ru 5e 6 \6yos v/uluv val 
vai, oi> ov, instead of the correct and widely attested &7rw de vfiCbv to val val, Kal 
to ov of, see my edition and cp. Ja. »5. 12 ijruj 5£ vjulQv to val val, Kal to ov of. 

a b v. App. p. 323. 

§7S 7. §76.1.] NEGATIVES. OTHER ADVERBS. 2 $7 

form of the negative is also occasionally used elsewhere, Jo. 13. io f. 

O-U^t 7T(ivT€S, 14. 2 2, 1 C. 10. 29, 7TCOS OTT)^ R- 8. 32, OT^l fJt&^OV 1 C. 

5. 2, 6. 7, 2 C. 3. 8. — The position of the negative is as a matter of 
course before the thing to be negatived, especially therefore does it 
stand before the verb ; frequently negative and verb coalesce into a 
single idea, as in ovk eco (or the more colloquial ovk a<£tw) ' prevent/ 
A. 19. 30 etc. A separation of the negative from the verb may 
cause ambiguity, as in A. 7. 48 dXX' ovx 6 vxpicrros lv x* l P 07r oir)rois 
KaroLKei (as if the writer's intention was to state that someone 
else dwelt therein)"; (Ja. 3. 1 firj iroXXol SiSdo-KaXot ylveo-Qe, but see 
§ 28. 5) ; hence the tendency is to place it immediately before the 
verb, has ovk ecrnv G. 3. 20. A difficulty is caused by ov irdvrcos 
R. 3. 9, 1 C. 5. 10, which looks like a partial negation (a general 
negation being expressed by irdvrcos ovk rjv deXrjpa 1 C. 16. 12), but 
at any rate in E. 3. 9 the meaning must be ' by no means.' But not 
only D*GP Syr., but also Origen and Ohrys. here simply omit ov 
wavrcos, so that we can neglect this passage. 1 In the other passage the 
meaning appears to berather 'not altogether 5 (Winer, § 61, 5, cp. Clem. 
Horn. iv. 8, xix. 9, xx. 5). The meaning of the passage 1 C. 15. 51 is 
also uncertain on critical grounds : irdvres (ptv) ov KoiprjOrjcropeOa, rrdvres 
Se dXXayrjcropeda the reading of B al. gives a quite unsatisfactory 
sense (unless irdvres ov is taken as = ov irdvres, as it is at any rate 
used in Herm. Sim. viii. 6. 2 irdvres ov perevorjcrav ' not all '), but there 
are several other readings supported by the authority of mss. and 
Fathers, see Tischendorf. — The order of words in H. 11. 3 is correct 
in classical Greek, els to pr) J/c cfaaivopevcov ( = eK prj </>.) to f3Xeiropevov 
yeyovevai (2 Mace. 7. 28 on ovk e£ ovrcov eTrotrjcrev avrd 6 Oeos), since 
participles and adjectives used in connection with a preposition have 
a tendency to take any adverbial words which are in apposition with 
them before the preposition, as in ov perd iroXXds A. 1. 5, L. 15. 13 D 
(al. per ov iroXXds, as in A. 27. 14 per ov iroXv), Demosth. 18. 133 
ovk ev Seovn i unseasonabl} 7 ' (like cos els eXdx^crra, ovto) p'expi Troppoy 
and many others). 


1. Adverb as predicate. — Adverbs like kyyvs and iroppto may, as in 
the classical language, be joined with etVcu as predicates, or be used 
as predicates with an ellipse of etvai, e.g. 6 Kvpios eyyvs Ph. 4. 5, no 
less than prepositions with their cases which are so abundantly used 
in this way, e.g. rjv ev ry 7r6Xei. a The use of ovrcos as a predicate is less 
classical : Mt. 1. 18 r) yevecrts ovrcos rjv (for roiavrrj rjv or ovrcos ecrx^v), 
19. 10 el ovrcos ecrrlv r) carta rov dvOpcoirov k.t.X., R. 4. 18 O.T., 1 P. 
2. 15 (although ecrcrerai ovrcos, i.e. cos Xeyeis, and ecrrtv ovrcos in an 
answer are also classical constructions) ; besides this use we have 
oiWcos %x* 1 in A. 7. 1 etc. Another predicative use of ovrcos occurs in 
R. 9. 20 ri pe eirotrjcras ovrcos, — rotovrov. The phrase to etVat i'<ra (an 
adverbial neut. plur.) Oeco Ph. 2. 6 is in agreement with an old usage 

1 The best text appears to be tl odv irpoKarexofJiev ; ttolvtcos yriaaafjieda 'lovdaiovs 
k.t.X. a v. App. p. 323. 


258 OTHER ADVERBS. [§ 76. 1-4. 

of the language, cp. Time. iii. 14 l<ra koL LKerai io-fiey, Winer, § 27, 3. 
With ylveo-Oai (with which verb the use of an adverb is in itself 
quite unobjectionable) we have 1 Th. 2. 10 ws ocrcm koX Sikoucos koI 
d/j,€/jL7rT(i)s v/jliv tols TTKTTtvovcTLV iyevrjdrjfjLev (beside 2. 7 iyevrjOrj/xev 
fjiTLoi) ' we have behaved'; cp. A. 20. 18 ttojs ... eyevofirjv (D 7rora77cos 

2. There is a tendency in Greek to express certain adverbial ideas 
by particular verbs : thus ' secretly ' or ' unconsciously ' is expressed 
by XavOdveiv with a participle, § 73, 4 (H. 13. 2 ; elsewhere the 
adverb XdOpa is used as also in class. Greek, Mt. 1. 19 etc.), 'con- 
tinuously/ 'further/ 'incessantly ' by SiaTeXetv, eiripkveiv, ov StaAetVeti/, 
vide ibid.; cp. with an infinitive faXovo-c 7rpoorevx^o-6ai 'gladly' (Mt. 
6. 5, Winer, § 54, 4), and (with an imitation of Hebrew) irpoo-kOero 
7T€fjL\f/aL L. 20. 11 f. (not in ~D) = 7rdXiv eTrejjuf/ev in Mc. 12. 4, although 
(according to A. 1 2. 3 irpoo-eQeTo crvXXafteiv kclI Uerpov) it must rather 

be rendered 'he proceeded to' (Hebr. 5 S|OW with an inf.); the 
same meaning is elsewhere given by the participle of irpoo-n Okvai, 
7rpocr9els etirev L. 19. 1 1, like Trpoo-Oetcra ereKev LXX. Gen. 38. 5 
6 further.' 

3. Of the correlative adverbs (§ 25, 5) the interrogative form is 
used instead of the relative in exclamations : ttws Svo-koXov Jom Mc. 

10. 23, cp. 24, L. 18. 24, irtos o-wexo/xat L. 12. 50, 7rws k$>iXei avrov 
(Attic ocrov) Jo. 11. 36 (Herm. Mand. xi. 20, xii. 4. 2). Cp. the 
Pronouns, § 51, 4. Still in R 10. 15 O.T. we have <k wpacoc k.t.X., 

11. 33 ws dvegeptvvrjTa k.t.X. — "Ows (D cos) in an indirect question 
representing 7rcos is only found in L. 24. 20 (cp. § 50, 5). On 7rcos = ws 

= otl see § 70, 2. — ('Ore ... ore 8e for 'now... now,' instead of 
tot€ pXv . . . rore Se, occurs in Barn. 2. 4, 5 [a Hellenistic use ; cp. os 
jjLtv . . . 65 8e, § 46, 2] ; but we also find 7rore fiev . . ttotI Se in Barn. 
10. 7, which is classical ; in the N.T. no instances of these phrases 
are attested). 

4. Instances of attraction with adverbs of place, as for instance in 
class. Greek we have 6 eKetOev 7roAe^os (for o e/cet cov) Sevpo r^ei (Demosth. 
1. 15 ; Buttm. p. 323), cannot be quoted from the N.T., except the 
passage L. 16. 26 //^S' ol e/cet#ei/ (ol before e/c. is omitted by K*BD) 
tt/oos vfjids 8ta7repwo-tv, where however we might supply OeXovres 
Siaftrjvai from the preceding clause. Still we find a corresponding 
use of i£ instead of iv : L. 11. 136 TraTrjp 6 e£ ovpavov Stocret irvevfia 
dyiov (6 before e£ om. tfLX), Mt. 24. 17 prj KCLTa/SaTO) apa ra (D dpai 

Tt = Mc. 13. 15) €K T7JS OIKLOLS OLVTOV, Col. 4. 1 6 TTjV CK AaoSiKeiOlS 

(€7ncrroXr)v) Iva koi v/xeis dvayvajre, the letter which you will find 
there. (But in Ph. 4. 22 ol Ik rrjs Kato-apos oIkicls membership is 
denoted by e£, as also in ol 4k TrepLTopLrjs B,. 4. 12, cp. § 40, 2; 
dcnrd&vac v/xds ol aVo rrjs 'IraAta? H. 13. 24 is ambiguous and 
obscure, as the place where the letter was written is unknown.) — 
An attraction, corresponding to that of the relative (§ 50, 2), is found 
in the case of an adverb in Mt. 25. 24, 26 crwdyojv oOev ( = €K€iO€v ov) 
ov 8 cecr k 6 pTTiar as. 

§ 77- 1-2-] PARTICLES {CONJUNCTIONS). 259 


1. One part of the functions of the particles (including the con- 
junctions) is that they serve to give greater prominence to the modal 
character of the sentence, as is the case with the particle av and the 
interrogative particles, but their more usual function is to express 
the mutual relations existing between the sentences and the clauses 
which compose them : membership of a single series, antithesis, rela- 
tion between cause and effect, or between condition and result etc. 
The number of particles employed in the N.T. is considerably 
less than the number employed in the classical language, see § 26, 2; 
still in spite of this it appears excessively large in comparison with 
the poverty displayed by the Semitic languages in this department. 

2. On the particle av, cp. §§ 63 ; 65, 4-10 ; 66, 2 (70, 5 ; 74, 6).— 
Direct interrogative sentences, which are not introduced by an 
interrogative pronoun or adverb, but expect the answer 'yes' or 
'no,' do not require a distinguishing particle any more than in 
classical Greek, since the tone in which they are uttered is a 
sufficient indication of their character, though it is true that when 
they are transmitted to writing the general sense of their context 
is the only thing which distinguishes them, and this in certain 
circumstances may be ambiguous (§4, 6 ; instances of this are 
Jo. 16. 31, 1 C. 1. 13, Viteau p. 23, 50). If an affirmative 
answer is to be intimated, this character of the sentence is marked 
by the insertion of ov, if a negative answer, by the insertion of 
jjltj (prJTi); and this is a case where a question is distinguished as 
such by an external symbol, since the use of prj with an indicative 
where the particle is in no way dependent can certainly not be found 
except in an interrogative sentence, cp. § 75, 2. Double questions 
with the distinguishing particles irorepov ... r\ occur nowhere in the 
N.T. in direct speech (in indirect speech only in John 7. 17 ; also 
Barn. 19. 5); more often the first member of the sentence is left 
without a distinguishing particle, as in G. 1. 10 apn yap avOpwroys 
TretOo) rj rov 6e6v; (the simple interrogative rj = an 'or' occurs in 
Mt. 20. 15, 26. 53, 2 C. 11. 7, where FG have fj p? 'or perhaps,' a 
combination of particles not elsewhere attested). Still there are 
certain interrogative particles, of which may be mentioned in the 
first place & P a or dpd 7c ; this, it is true, can only be distinguished 
from the inferential apa (ye) by the prosody, and it is moreover quite 
rare and only represented in Luke and Paul (therefore a literary 
word) : L. 18. 8 apa evpr)(rei rrjv ttivtiv eirl Tr\<$ yrjs ; A. 8. 30 apa ye 
yii/coo-Kets a avayivoxr/cets ; G. 2. 17 apa Xpcarrbs afxaprtas StaKOVOS ; 
fiTf yevoiro (this phrase jmrj y. in the Pauline Epp. is always an 
answer to a question, § 66, 1 : therefore apa cannot be read here; still 
apa in this passage has the meaning of ' therefore ' which apa else- 
where has, § 78, 5). a We have a kindred use of apa (as in classical 
Greek) after tls in Mt. 18. 1 rls apa fietfav ka-rlv k.t.X., L. 1. 66 etc. 
(in indirect speech in 22. 23) : after el (indirect and direct) in Mc. 
11. 13, A. 7. 1, 8. 22 (et a/oa 7 6 17. 27); after fxrjn in 2 C. 1. 17 ; it 

* v. App. p. 323. 

260 PARTICLES {CONJUNCTIONS). [§ 77. 2-4. 

denotes astonishment in A. 21. 38 ovk dpa o-v el 6 Alyvirnos; ('not 
then'), while in other cases it corresponds to our 'well 5 or 'then'; 
Tts apa in Mt. 19. 25, 27 is inferential, 'now,' 'then,' cp. supra on 
G-. 2. 17. Again the d of indirect questions (§ 65, 1, cp. 6) may also 
be attached to a direct question: Mt. 12. 10 eTrrjp^rrjo-av avrbv 
Xeyovres' Et e^ecrrtv rots <rd(3/3a<Tiv Oepairevcrai ; 19. 3 Aeyovres Et ... 
(it introduces similar words in indirect speech in Me. 10. 2, Viteau 
p. 22, 1), A. 1. 6, 7. 1 etc. (most frequently in Luke, Win. § 57, 2) ; 
the usage is unclassical, but is also found in the LXX. (Gen. 17. 17 
etc., Winer loc. cit.). 1 The alternative use of the interrogative 7% 
like the use of the same word affirmatively, is entirely wanting. 

3. Sentences which denote assurance, both direct and indirect (in 
the latter case the infinitive is used), are in classical Greek intro- 
duced by rj firjv, which in the Hellenistic and Roman period is some- 
times written in the form of el (accent 1) ^v 2 ; so in the LXX. and in 
a quotation from it in H. 6. 14 el /jltju evXoyuv evXoyrjo-a) ere (77 KL*). 
Another corroborative word is the particle vai = ' yea/ to which the 
opposite is ov ovxi 'nay,' § 75, 7. Nat is also used in the emphatic 
repetition of something already stated, 'yes indeed,' L. 12. 5 vat, 
Aeya> vpiv, tovtov 4>o/3rj0r)Te, 11. 51, Ap. 1. 7, 14. 13, 16. 7 ; also in a 
repeated request Mt. 15. 27, Ph. 4. 3, Philem. 20 (it is a favourite 
word in classical Greek in formulas of asseveration and adjuration, 
e.g. vat Trpbs tQ>v yovdVcov Aristoph. Pax 1113). Nat is not the only 
form for expressing an affirmative answer, the statement made 
may also be repeated and endorsed (as in classical Greek) : 
Mc. 14. 61 f. o-v el...; ...eyco et/xt, cp. A. 22. 27 where the f$ 
text has dpi for vat of the a text ; further we have the abbreviated 
eyw Kvpie sc. vTrdyco (which D inserts) Mt. 21. 30; another formula 
is prv Aeyets (etVas) Mt. 27. 11, 26. 25, Mc. 15. 2, L. 23. 3, 
i.e. 'you say so yourself, not V (§ 48, 1), which always to some 
extent implies that one would not have made this particular state- 
ment spontaneously if the question had not been asked; in Jo. 18. 37 
we have crv Aiyets, 6Vt (not 'that,' but 'since,' 'for,' § 78, 6) /SacnXev? 
elfu, which is similar to L. 22. 70 -5/xets key ere, on eyco et/xt. — A certain 
extenuation, and at the same time a corroboration, of a proposition 
made is contained in the word Stjttou 'surely,' 'certainly' (an appeal 
to the knowledge possessed by the readers as well) : it is only found 
in H. 2. 16 (a classical and literary word). 

4. The particle 76 which serves to emphasize a word (known by 
the old grammarians as the o-vvSeo-pios 7rapair\r}punaTu<6s) in the N.T. 
is almost confined to its use in connection with other conjunctions, 
in which case it often really sinks into being a mere unmeaning 
appendage. Thus we have apd ye, dpa ye (supra 2 ; § 78, 5), Kalroiye, 
fievovvye § 77, 14 ; frequently el 8e fxrj ye with an ellipse of the verb, 
'otherwise' (classical), Mt. 6. 1, 9. 17 (B omits ye), L. 5. 36 etc., 
2 C. 11. 16 (on the other hand Mc, Jo., and Ap. have this phrase 
without ye), fjbrjT tye § 75, 2. Still ye keeps its proper meaning in 

1 It is probably a Hebraism (Viteau), being another rendering (besides m) 
of the Hebrew n. 

2 Blass Ausspr. 33 3 n. 77 ; so also Berl. Aegypt. Urk. 543. 

§ 77- 4-6.] PARTICLES (CONJUNCTIONS). 261 

dXXd ye vfiiv elfit 1 C. 9. 2 ' yet at least I am so to you,' which class. 
Greek would express by separating the particles dXX' v/xiv ye (and 
the particles are somewhat differently used in L. 24. 21 dXXd ye /cat 
o-vv 7raW tovtols ' but indeed'); also in kou ye eirl rovs SovXovs 
A. 2. 18 O.T. (Herm. Mand. viii. 5 Kai ye iroXXd) 'and also' (or 'and 
indeed '), where again class. Greek would separate the particles koI 
Ittl ye, as St. Paul does in 1 C. 4. 8 Kal o<f>e\6v ye efiaviXevo-are 'and 
I would also that ye did ... ' (D*FG omit ye) 1 ; and in el ye si quidem 
(R 5. 6 v.l.) 2 C. 5. 3, E. 3. 2, 4. 21, Col. 1. 23 (classical). It 
appears without another conjunction in L. 11. 8 Std ye n)v dvaiSetay 
uvrov, cp. 18. 5, E. 8. 32 os ye #m quidem 'One who,' Herm. Vis. i. 
1. 8 dfjiaprla ye ecrTi ('indeed it is'), Kal fieydXy], 

5. Particles which connect sentences or clauses with one another 
or place them in a certain relation to each other, fall into two 
classes, namely those which indicate that the clauses possess an 
equal position in the structure of the sentence (co-ordinating 
particles), and those which subordinate and give a dependent char- 
acter to the clauses introduced by them (subordinating particles). 
The former are of the most diverse origin, the latter are for the 
most part derived from a relative stem. They may be divided 
according to their meaning as follows: (only co-ordinating) — (1) 
copulative, (2) disjunctive, (3) adversative; (only subordinating) — 
(4) comparative, (5) hypothetical, (6) temporal, (7) final, (8) con- 
junctions used in assertions and in indirect questions ; (partly co- 
ordinating, partly subordinating)— (9) consecutive, (10) causal, (11) 
concessive conjunctions. 

6. The copulative conjunctions in use in the N.T. are /ecu, re, ovre 
fJLrjre, ov8e p/Se. In the case of k<h a distinction is made between its 
strictly copulative meaning ('and') and its adjunctive meaning 
('also'). The excessive and uniform use of /cat to string sentences 
together and combine them makes the narrative style, especially in 
Mark, but also in Luke as e.g. in A. 13. 17 ff., in many ways un- 
pleasant and of too commonplace a character, cp. § 79, 1 : whereas 
elsewhere in Luke as well as in John the alternative use of the 
particles re, 8e, ovv, and of asyndeton gives a greater variety to the 
style, apart from the fact that these writers also employ a sub- 
ordinating or participial construction. Kcu may be used even where 
& contrast actually exists : Mc. 12. 12 ko! kgqrow avrov Kparrjo-at, 
Kal i<po/3rj0r}o-av rbv 6'xA,ov, cp. L. 20. 19 (but D in Luke reads e<fiof3. 
8e), Jo. 1. 5. It frequently = ' and yet' (kcu 6/zg>s, opus 8e are not in 
Use): Mt. 6. 26 ov o-n-etpovcrLV ..., Kal 6 Trarrjp vp.cov 6 ovpdvios rpecfrei 
avrd, 10. 29, Jo. 1. 10, 3. 11, 32 etc. (with a negative in Mt. 11. 17, 
A. 12. 19 etc., where this meaning is less striking), and hence the 
mutual relation of the several clauses is often very vaguely stated, 
and must be helped out with some difficulty by the interpretation 

1 L. 19. 42 is a difficult passage, el ^ws /cat cn> Kai ye 4v rrj rj/xipa crov raTjTj] 
tcl Trpbs eipi\vy]v aov, where Eusebius has kcll ye ci> iv, and D Kal <rv ev (Kaiye 
must mean 'at least,' = class. %v ye rrj k.t.X.) ; also A. 17. 27, for which 
cp. § 74, 2. 


which is put upon the passage, e.g. in Jo. 7. 28 /ca/xe otSare /cat oiSare 
iroOev elfii, (as you say), /cat aV epavrov ovk iXijXvOa, aAA' /c.t.A., i.e. 
4 and yet in reality I did not ' etc., = classical /cat pyjv, /catVot, or with 
a participle /cat ravra aV kp. ovk kX-qXvOora. A different use is that of 
the so-called consecutive /cat, in English 4 and so' or 'so' : Mt. 5. 15 
dAA' kirl tyjv Xvyyiav (riQeacriv), Kal Xdpirei k.t.X. ( = cocrre Xaprreiv; in 
L. 8. i6 = ll. 33 expressed by tVa), H. 3. 19 Kal fiXe-iro^ey 'and so 
we see,' op&pev ovv; this use is specially found after imperatives, 
Mt. 8. 8 elire Aoyw, kcu (so) laOrjorerai, cp. L. 7. 7 where BL give a 
closer connection to the clauses by reading Kal la6rJT<a: Ja. 4. 7 
dvTLcm]Te rw Sta/?oAo), /cat cfrev^erai ac/> ? vp(ov ( = cf>€V^erat yap, cu^ij? 
yap <£.); still we have a similar classical use, Oeo-Qe ... /cat ... otcret 
Soph. O.C. 1410 ff., ireiOov Xeyovri, kovx a[xapTr)<rri work El. 1207, 
Kiihner ii. 2 792, 5. On /cat with a future following sentences of 
design with a conjunctive, to denote an ulterior result, see § 65, 2 ; 
cp. also Mt. 26. 53, H. 12. 9; further L. 11. 5 rk e£ i)/xwv e£et <£tAov, 
Kal TTopevcrerai wpbs avrov . . . Kal €t7r7y avra) — Ka/ceti/os . . . ei-irr) (§ 64, 6), 
instead of subordinating the clauses by means of edV or a gen. abs>, 
just as the first /cat might also have been avoided by writing '4x<av 
4>lXov. Co-ordination in place of subordination occurs in statements 
of time: Mc. 15. 25 /cat rjv copa rptrr) Kal ('when' or 'that') ecrrav~ 
puxrav avrov (the crucifixion has already been narrated in 24), 
unless D is right in reading /cat e<fivXacrcrov avrov (in favour of 
which Tisch. compares Mt. 27. 36) ; this passage and L. 23. 44 
/cat rjv 7]8r] copa <ektt], Kal ctkotos lykvero may be paralleled from 
classical Greek (Plat. Sympos. 220 c, Win. § 53, 3); still even 
Luke has the unclassical use rfgovo-tv rjpkpat ... Kal ('when ') L. 19. 43 : 
Mt. 26. 45, H. 8. 8 O.T. The use of /cat with a finite verb after /cat 
iyevero, eyevero Se, instead of the accusative and infinitive which is 
likewise found (§ 65, 5), is an imitation of Hebrew: L. 19. 15 /cat 
kykvero £v tw kiraveXOeiv avrov ... Kal (om. syr. latt.) etirev, 9. 28 ey. Se 
/xeTa rovs Xoyovs rovrovs, axret ypepat o/ctco (§ 33, 2) Kal (om. K*BH 
latt. syr.) ... dvk/3rj, cp. A. 5. 7 (here all MSS. read /cat), although in 
constructions of this kind the /cat is more often omitted : Mc. 4. 4 
/cat kykvero kv ra> o-ireipeiv, o pkv €7recrev /c.t.A., Mt. 7. 28 etc.' ; a the 
lyeveTo which is purely pleonastic owes its origin solely to a dis- 
inclination to begin a sentence with a statement of time (§ 80, 1)*' 
Another Hebraistic use of /cat is to begin an apodosis 1 : L. 2. 21 /cat 
ore €7rXrjo-Qr]o-av ..., /cat (om. D) eKXrjOrj /c.t.A., 7. 12 (05 Se rjyytcrev ... 
/cat l8ov kgeKoplfcro /c.t.A., where the reading of D shows that this 
use is scarcely different from the use with kykvero, viz. kykvero Se w? 
riyyi&v ..., J^e/co/ztfeTO, cp'. also A. 1. 10 (/cat i6oi>), 10. 17 (/cat tS. CD 
al., kAB omit /cat), Ap. 3. 20 after a sentence beginning with kav 
(AP omit /cat). But the case is different with 2 C. 2. 2 et yap kya> 
Xviru) vpds, KalTis 6 evcfrpaLvuyv pe, i.e. 'who then,' as Winer correctly 
explains it, comparing Mc. 10. 26 /cat Tt's Svvarai a-oiOrjvac, Jo. 9. 36, 
14. 22 X al. (a classical use, Xenoph. Cyr. v. 4. 13 etc., Kiihner ii. 2 
791 f.); many exx. in Clem. Horn. ii. 43 I; Ph. ]. 22 should 

1 Found also in Homer, e.g. II. A. 478. a b v. App. p. 323. 

§ 77- 6-8.] PARTICLES {CONJUNCTIONS). 263 

accordingly be punctuated, el 8e to £tJv kv o-apKi, tovto jjlol Kapirbs 
kpyov, Kal tl alprjiTOfxai • ov yva)p[£u), o-vvk^ofxat 8e k.t.X. 1 a 

7. Kat meaning 'and indeed' (epexegetic koI as Winer calls it, 
cp. Kiihner 791) appears in Jo. 1. 16 Kal xdpiv dvrl x<*P lT °s, \ C. 3. 

5, 15. 38 Kal eKao-TO); with a demonstrative it gives emphasis, Kal 
tovtov ecrravpoy/Jbevov 1 0. 2. 2, i<al tovto idque B,. 13. 11, 1 C 6. 6, 8 
(in 8 there is a v.L Kal TavTa, as in H. 11. 12 and in class. Greek, 
Kiihner ibid.). With A. 16. 15 ws Se kfia-irTio-Qr), Kal 6 otkos avTrjs 
('and likewise,' 'together with'; so 18. 2) cp. Aristoph. Ean. 697 f. 
0? /*€#' "u/xwi/ 7roXXd 8rj x ^ Trarepe? evavpLayiqo-av. It is Used after 
iroX-us before a second adjective, pleonastically according to our usage 
(a classical and literary use), in A. 25. 7 iroXXd Kal fiapka atnco/xara 
(Tit. 1. 10 V). It is not used as in class. Gk. after 6 euro's, 6>otws and 
the like (Kiihner-Gerth 413 note 11).— For kclC 'also' in and after 
sentences of comparison vide infra § 78, 1 ; it = 'even' in Mt. 5. 46 
etc., and before a comparative in 11. 9, but in H. 8. 6 oo-o> Kat 
KpetTTovos k.t.X. the Kat is the same as that in comparative sentences; 
there is a tendency to use it after 8t6, 8id tovto to introduce the 
result, L. 1. 35, 11. 49. On Kat yap see § 78, 6 ; a kindred use to 
this (Kat occupying another position) is seen in H. 7. 26 toiovtos ydp 
fjfjLLV Kal eirpeirev dpxiepevs. In /x€T<x Kat KA^/ze^TOS Ph. 4. 3 it is 
pleonastic, cp. Clem. Cor. i. 65. 1 a-vv Kal 3?ovpTvvdT<x>. b On Kat ... 8e 
vide infra 12. A peculiar (but classical) use of it is after an in- 
terrogative, as in rt Kat /3a7TTi£ovTaL 1 C. 15. 29, 'why at all?' (or 
'even as much as'), cp. R 8. 24, C L. 13. 7, Kiihner 798. 

8. Te by no means appears in all writings of the N.T., and would 
not be represented to any very great extent at all but for the Acts, 
in which book alone there are more than twice as many instances of 
it as occur in the rest of the N.T. together (the instances are equally 
distributed over all parts of the Acts ; next to the Acts the greatest 
number of instances occur in Hebrews and Romans ; there are only 
eight instances in Luke's Gospel 2 ). The use of the simple re (for re 
... Kat, re Kat, Te ...Te vide infra 9) is also foreign for the most part 
to cultured Atticists, while the higher style of poetry uses it abun- 
dantly. In the N.T. Te is not often used to connect single ideas (this 
use in classical Greek is almost confined to poetry, Kiihner ii. 2 786), 
as in H. 6. 5 Oeov prj[xa Svvd/JLeis re pceXXovTos alcovos, 9. I, 1 C. 4. 21, 
cp. further infra 9 ; in the connection of sentences it denotes a closer 
connection and affinity between them : A. 2. 40 eTepois Te (8e male D) 
Aoyots TrXeioa-iv StefiapTvpaTo (' and likewise '), 37 KaTevvyrjo-av tt]V 

1 In Ja. 4. 15 it is perfectly admissible to let the apodosis begin with Kal 
(both) t~r}croiAev instead of beginning it at Kal Tzod]o-o\xev, Buttm. 311 note. — Co- 
ordination with Kal instead of a subordinate clause : L. 1. 49 6 dvvaros, Kal ayiov 
rb ovofia avrov ( = od to '6v. 017.), L. 8. 12 ol aKotiaavres, elra epxerat, Mt. 13. 22. 

2 The simple re only occurs in L. 21. 11 bis, although here too it is followed 
by a Kai, creep fxoi re ('and,' re om. AL) fiey&Xoi Kal ... Atjuot ... eVoz>rcu, (poftyTpa re 
('and') Kal ajj/ne'ta . . . 'iarai : unless this is rather a case of asyndeton, vide 9 (since 
re is not a suitable word for a connecting particle). In 24. 20 for ottws (ws D) 
re avrbv the correct reading may be that of D oircos (cos) tovtov. (Still in 23. 36 
D has 6%os T€ irpoaeQepov avr<£ Xeyovres.) — In Jo. re is only found in 2. 15, 4. 42, 

6. 18 (all questionable). a b c v. App. p. 323. 

264 PARTICLES (CONJUNCTIONS). [§ 77. 8-9. 

KapScav, etirov re (' and SO they said'), 27. 4 f. vireirXevcrapiev rrjv 
K.V7rpov ... to re 7reAayos to Kara, t?)i> KiAi/aav ... 8ia,7rA,€t;o-avT€s k.t.A,. 
(in pursuance of the course adopted). 1 

9. We find the following correlative combinations (meaning 'as 
well ... as also') Kal ... Kal ..., t€ ... Kal (t€ /cat), re ... re. The last 
(which in classical Greek is more frequent in poetry than in prose, 
though in prose it is commoner than a simple re, Kuhner ii. 2 788), 
besides its use in ovre ... ovre etc. (inf. 10) occurs in elre ... etre, see 
§ 78, 2; also in edv re ... edv re E. 14. 8 bisf but otherwise only in 
A. 26. 16 &v re etdes 5i/ tc 6<p0 qa-ofjiat croi ; the combined phrases are 
in this way placed side by side (often = even as ... so ...). Te...KaC 
affords a closer connection than the simple koll : in Attic Greek it is 
generally avoided if Kal would immediately follow tc, since in this 
case re might appear to have no point ; in the N.T. however it is 
found in this case as well, Mt. 22. 10 Trovrjpovs re Kal dyaOovs, A. 1. 1 
iroielv re Kal $i8dcrK€LV, 2. 9 f., 4. 27, E. 1. 12 vficov re Kal efxov, 3. 9 
'lovSatovs re Kal "EXXrjvas, etc. The connection of 'lovSaloi and 
"EX\y]ves is almost always made by means of re Kal or re ... Kal : 
A. 14. i (18. 4 eireiOev re T. Kal "EAAiji/as, for an obvious reason), 
19. io (without re D), 17 (om. re DE), 20. 21, E. 1. 16 (re om. »*), 
2. 9, 10. 12 (without re DE), 1 C. 1. 24 (tc om. FG) ; but in 10. 32 
we have dirpoo-Koiroi Kal TouScuots yiveorOe Kal "EAA^o-fcv Kal rrj 
eKKX^oria rov Oeov, where the distinction of the different nationalities 
is kept, whereas in the other passages with re Kal the difference is 
rather removed. For Kal... Kal cp. Mt. 10. 28 Kal (not in all MSS.) 
\pvxty Kal orw/xa, which however may mean ' even soul and body ' (as 
is still more clearly the meaning in 8. 27 =Mc. 4. 41 =L. 8. 25 Kal 6 
avefios Kal 07 OdXavcra viraKOVovcnv avrco), L. 5. 36 Kal ro Kaivov o-^to-et, 
Kal to) waXaiip ov crvfjL<p(i)vrjcreL K.r.X. ('on the one hand... on the other/ 
so that there is a double injury); the use is somewhat more frequent 
in John, tVa Kal 6 o-Trelpayv Sfxov x a WV Ka ^ ° Oepifav 4. 36, where the 
two clauses are sharply distinguished: 7. 28 (supra 6), 11. 48 (in 
these two passages the particles have a less definite meaning), 12. 28, 
15. 24 vvv 8e i<al eupaKacriv Kal ('and yet') \xe\xio~r]Kao~iv Kal e/xe Kal ruv 
irarepa {jlov (Who appear to them to be different Persons). Paul 
uses a double Kal in E. 14. 9 bis, 1 C. 1. 22 etc.; a peculiar instance 
is Ph. 4. 12 018a Kal raTreivova-Qai, oT8a Kal Trepurareveiv , where Kal even 
in the first clause has rather the meaning of 'also.'— In longer 
enumerations re (...) Kal may be followed by a further re, as in 
A. 9. 15 eOvcov re (re om. HLP) Kal /3ao-iXe(ov vl(ov re 'YcrpaqX, 26. 10, 
Clem. Cor. i. 20. 3 (on the other hand in L. 22. 66 rb 7rpecr/3vrepi,ov 
rov Xaov, dp^tepet? re Kal ypa[i,[x,areL$ the last words are an explanatory 
apposition, since otherwise the article must have been used [D Kal 
dpx- Kal yp.]) ; but in H. 6. 2 re ... re ... Kal (dvao-rdo-ecos and 
KpLfiar os being closely connected by /cat), and in 11. 32 Kal ... 
Kal Kal ... Kal (an enumeration of names, where however the 

1 So in Clem. Cor. i. 20. 10 twice, i. 3 - ii. 1 four times. It cannot be wondered 
at that re was often confused in course of transmission with 54 ; thus re is in- 
admissible in a parenthesis, as in A. 1. 15 KAB have 9jp re for ?}v 8e (infra 12). 

a v. App. p. 323. 

§ 77- 9-10.] PARTICLES {CONJUNCTIONS). 265 

first three conjunctions are wanting in kA,) in this passage the re 
must be taken as a connective particle and not as correlative to Kal 
{similarly in A. 13. 1, 1 C. 1. 30), whereas in the long enumerations 
in A. 1. 13 and 2. 9 ff. couples are formed by means of re Kal or a 
simple Kal, and the relation between the several couples is one of 
asyndeton (cp. Mt. 10. 3 f., 24. 38, R 1. 14, 1 Tim. 1. 9, Clem. Cor. 
i. 3. 2, 35. 5, Herm. Mand. xii. 3. 1 ; in L. 6. 14 ff. there is a v.l. in 
kBD al. [opposed to A .al.] with a continuous use of Kal, as in the 
reading of all the mss. in Mc. 3. 16 ff.). — Position of the correlative 
re : where a preposition precedes which is common to the connected 
ideas, the re is notwithstanding placed immediately after this pre- 
position, A. 25. 23 <rvv re x L ^ L( ^PX ^ Kai avSpdariv, 28. 23, 10. 39 (a 
v.l. repeats the ev), as also in classical Greek (Win. § 61, 6) ; on the 
other hand we have twv Wvcov re kcu 'Io-uScuW A. 14. 5 (rwv k. Kal 


10. The use of correlative negative clauses with oiire ...ofe or htjtc 
...|j.t|T€ respectively, and of ov8* or ^Se respectively as a connecting 
particle after negative sentences (and of Kal ov, Kal ^ after positive 
sentences) remains the same as in classical Greek. Therefore ov ..., 
ovre ... ovre is 'not ... neither ... nor,' Mt. 12. 32 etc.; cp. L. 9. 3 firjSev 
..., fxrjT€ . . . /jbrjre k.t.X. with Mt. 10. 9 f. (Winer). In 1 C. 6. 9 f. a 
very long enumeration which begins with ovre . . . ovre etc. finally 
veers round to asyndeton with ov ... ov (once also in Mt. 10. 10 pr) 
is interposed between several cases of firjSe). Of course it often 
happens, as in profane writers, that ovre — ov8e, fxrjre — firjSe are con- 
fused in the mss., as is also the case with Se and re (supra 8) 1 . If 
ovSe or fjLTjSe stands at the beginning of the whole sentence, or after 
an ov or /jlt) within the same clause of the sentence, it then means 
'not even,' 'not so much as': Mc. 8. 26 p7§e (fir) k*) els rrjv Kcjfirjv 
eto-eXOys (with many vv.ll.; the sense requires e&r^s in place of 
elo-eXOys), Mt. 6. 15 etc., Mc. 3. 20 wcrre fir) Svvaxrdai avrovs [ir)8e (male 
jiyre kCDE al.) aprov <j>ay€Lv. 2 The positive term corresponding to 
this ovSe is Kal ' even,' as the positive equivalent for ov ..., ovSe etc. is 
a series of words strung together by Kal, but the equivalent for ovre 
... ovre is Kal ... Kal, or re ... Kal (re): hence the reading in Mc. 14. 68 
ovre oT&a ovre eirivr a\xai of rBDL appears to be inadmissible, since 
the two perfectly synonymous words could not be connected by Kal 
... Kal, re Kal, and therefore the right reading is that of AKM ovk ... 
ov8e (CE al. read ovk... ovre, which seems to be the origin of the 

2 In L. 20. 36 ovre yap is wrongly read by KQ al. for ovde yap (§ 78, 6). In 
Ap. 9. 21 all mss. read oiire several times after ov, as in 21. 4 ; in 5. 4 nearly 
all have ovdels ..otire, but in 5. 3 they are divided: in 12. 8, 20. 4 ovde pre- 
ponderates (as also in Jo. 1. 25) : in 7. 16, 9. 4, 21. 23 all have ovdL Ja. 3. 12 
is quite corrupt. 

2 The sequence ovre ... ovre ... ovre ... ovSe ('nor at all,' as though a single ov or 
ovdafjiov had preceded) is perfectly admissible, A. 24. 12 f. , Buttm. 315 note. But 
we also find fii] ... pride (KABCE irqre) ... firjre A. 23. 8, where two ideas are con- 
nected and the second is subdivided, cp. for class, exx. Kiihner ii. 2 829 c ; 
accordingly in G. 1. 12 ovde yap ('since not even') ... irapfkafiov ov'tc edidaxQr}v 
{B al. ) would be possible, though ovde ed. is better attested and is more regular. 

266 PARTICLES (CONJUNCTIONS). [§ 77. 10-12. 

confusion). A disjunctive expression with a negative preceding may 
also be equivalent to ov ..., ov8e, or ov ... ovre ... ovre: Mt. 5. 17 /x?) 
vojuitorrire ort rjXOov KaraXikrat rbv vofiov rj robs 7rpocf)rjras = ovk rj. /car. 
ovre r.v. ovre r. 7rp.; A. 17. 29 etc.; cp. inf. 11. — Of course a correla- 
tion of negative and positive members is allowable, though this is 
not a frequent construction in the N.T.: Jo. 4. 11 ovre dvrXrjfjLa e^eis, 
/cat to cfypeap eo-rlv /3a6v (D and the Lewis Syr. have ov8e, which 
seems preferable), 3 Jo. 10 ovre avrbs eiriS'eyeTai . . . /cat rovs /SovXofJLevovs 
KOiXvei (in class. Greek oin-e ... /cat is very rare, Kiihner ii. 2 831 a). 
A 27. 20 /x^tc ... firjTe ... re (however this re is hardly a correlative, 
but rather a connecting particle). Kat ov after negative sentences, 
as in Mt. 15. 32 (Jo. 5. 37 f. ovre ... ovre ... Kal ... ov, but Chrys. has 
ov8e for /cat ... ov) does not imply a correlation, but an independent 
continuation, Buttm. p. 316, or a kind of parallelism, L. 18. 2 rbv 
Oebv fir) cf)o/3ov/ji€vo<s /cat dv6p(s)7rov pr) evrpeTrofievos (ibid. 4 AD al. 
similarly, ovSe kBLX). 

11. The disjunctive particle is r), also rj /cat 'or even' (L. 18. 11 
al.); correlatively rj...rj 'either... or' (for which we have the classical 
r/Tot ... rj in E. 6. 16, Kiihner ii. 2 837); in addition to this we have 
€i'T€ . . . €i'T€ sive . . . sive, which strictly introduces subordinate clauses, 
but in virtue of an ellipse may also (as in class. Greek) be used with- 
out a finite verb, as in 2 C. 5. 10 tVa KO/uLtcrrjraL e/cacrros ... €LT€ dyaObv 
etVe /ca/coV, E. 6. 8, Ph. 1. 18 etc., and not solely in a disjunctive 
sense, but equally well (as re is included in it) as a copula; cp. § 78, 2. 
H also approximates, especially in negative sentences, to the mean- 
ing of a copula: A. 1. 7 ov . . . \povovs rj Kcupovs (synonyms), 11. 8 
Kotvbv rj aKd6aprov ovSewore k.t.X., cp. 10. 18 ovSekore ecj^ayov irdv 
kolvov kol (rj CD al.) aKaOaprov : Jo. 8. 14 oT8a iroOev rjXOov Kal ttov 
virdyo)' v/Jbecs 8e ovk otSare iroOev ep^ofxai rj ttov V7rdy(0, a l C. 11. 27 6s dv 
ecrOirj ...rj ttlvj) ... &va£ta>s; 6 similarly in interrogative sentences, which 
in meaning are equivalent to a negative sentence, 1 Th. 2. 10 tls yap 
r)fji(ov ZXirls rj x a P<* V o-re^avos (in 20 the positive statement runs r) 86ga 
Kal r) \apd). "H an in interrogative sentences, vide supra 2, is sharply 
disjunctive ('otherwise this must be the case'). A singular instance 
of its use is in 1 Th. 2.19 (vide supra) tls yap . . . o-re^avos ; rj (r) is 
wanting in »*) oi'xt /cat vjxels . . . ; where 1) has probably been foisted 
into the text for the sake of the rfe (' who else but') ; cp. Jo. 13. 10 
v.l. (and a A A' r) inf. 13). 

12. The adversative particles most in use are 8c and dXXd, the 
former of which has its correlative in /zeV, while the latter usually 
refers to a preceding negative (' but on the contrary '). This refer- 
ence, however, may also be expressed, though not so strongly, by 
Se: A. 12. 9 ovk rjSei ... eS6/cet 8e ('but rather'), 14, H. 4. 13, 6. 12 
etc. A distinction must also be made between contradiction (dXXd) 
and antithesis (8e) : H. 2. 8 ov8ev d<fcrJKev avru> dvvTroraKrov' vvv 8e 
ovtto) opcofJiev avrco rd irdvra vir or er ay fxev a ('but,' 'on the other 
hand '). The correlation of [iev and Se, which is so essentially char- 
acteristic of the classical Greek style, is very largely reduced in the 
N.T., so that fxev is wholly absent from Ap., 2 P., 1, 2 and 3 Jo. 

a b v. App. p. 324. 

§ 77- 12-13.] PARTICLES {CONJUNCTIONS). 267 

2 Th., 1 Tim., Tit. (pkv in 1. 15 is spurious) and Philemon, and is 
practically unrepresented in Ja. (3. 17 irpwrov p\v . . . lireiTa, an 
antithesis also found in classical Greek without oe ; cp. Jo. 11. 6, a 
1 C. 12. 28), Eph. (4. 11 rovs fJLev...Tovs Se), Col. (2. 23, an ana- 
coluthon without an answering clause), and 1 Th. (2. 18 !ya> pev 
IlauAos, the antithetical clause being omitted but sufficiently in- 
timated by pkv, classical Greek has a similar use, Hdt. iii. 3 Ipol pkv 
ov ttiOolvos ['to me at least'], Kiihner 813 f.); it is also comparatively 
rare in the Gospels as a whole, and only occurs with any frequency 
in Acts, Hebrews (1 Peter) and some of the Pauline epistles. 1 
Moreover a large number of these instances, especially those in Luke, 
are instances of the resumptive pkv ovv, § 78, 5, where the pkv in 
very few cases indicates a real antithesis : other examples of ana- 
coluthic pkv are also fairly common in Luke, where the style and 
structure of the sentence are more or less harshly violated, as in 
L. 8. 5 f. o pkv ... Kou hepov (occasioned by a development of the idea 
being interposed: so in Mc. 4. 4 f.), A. 1. 1, 3. 13, 21, 17. 30, 27. 21 
(cp. also 2 C. 11. 4, H. 7. 11) : not to mention the instances,, where 
the omission of 8k is excusable or even classically correct, viz. 
•rrpwTov pkv E. 1. 8, 1 * 1 C. 11. 18 (perhaps 'from the very outset'), 
A. 28. 22 7T€pi pev yap rfjs oApecreais tolvttjs yvcocrrbv rjptv ecrrlv k.t.X. 
('so much we do indeed know'), R. 10. 1 r) pkv ev8oKta k.t.X. ( c so 
far as my wishes are concerned '), 11. 13 €<j> oo-ov pkv ovv dpi kytb WvQ>v 
awoo-ToXos k.t.X., cp. Kiihner 814?* — In Jo. 7. 12 ol pkv is followed by 
aAAot (a. 8k BTX) c with the asyndeton of which this gospel is so 
fond (§ 79, 4); in H. 12. 9 ov ttoXXco Z\ (k c D* the other MSS. omit 
5e) is correct or nearly so d ; we have instances of pkv...dXXa, 
pev...7rXrjv (Kiihn. 812 f.) in A. 4. 16, R 14. 20, 1 C. 14. 17: 
L. 22. 22 ; and a kindred use to this occurs in Mt. 17. 11 f. 'HAias 
pkv epx^rai..., Xkyay 8k vptv, with which cp. Mc. 9. 12 pkv... (om. 
DL), 13 aAAot..., where pkv means 'indeed,' 'certainly,' and 8k (or 
a A Act) is an emphatic 'but.' — Ae introduces a parenthesis in A. 12. 3 
rjo-av 8k at rjpkpac tmv dfvpoiv, cp. 1. 1 5 rjv 8k k.t.X. (re is wrongly 
read by KAB al.) : 4. 13 kirkyiv^o-Kov 8k (so D reads instead of re). 
It introduces an explantion or a climax (' but,' ' and indeed ') in 
R 3. 22 8iKaioo-vvrj 8k Oeov, 9. 30, 1. C. 2. 6, Ph. 2. 8.— We find ko.1 ... 
8k in connection with each other in A. 2. 44, 3. 24 Kal ttolvtzs 81 k.t.X., 
'and also all,' 22. 29 kou 6 xiXiapxos 8k, Mt. 16. 18 Kayo) 8k crol Xkyco, 
Jo. 8. 16 etc. (Tisch. on 6. 51), etc.: whereas 81 Kal means 'but 
also,' A. 22. 28 etc. 

13. 'AXXd, besides its use in opposition to a preceding ov 2 (with 
which must be classed ov povov ... a A Act Kat 3 ), is also found with ov, 

1 ~M.ev is not unfrequently interpolated in the inferior mss., Buttm. p. 313. 
Also in Clem. Cor. i. (62, 1 anacol.), Cor. ii., Barnabas (i. 2 anacol.) and 
Hernias it is only rarely represented. 

2 0£...dXXd may also mean 'not so much... as,' Mc. 9. 37 ovk i/Ak 8^x € Tdt, 
dXXd top diro(TT€L\avTd fie, Mt. 10. 20, Jo. 12. 44, A. 5. 4 etc., the first member 
of the sentence being not entirely negatived, but only made subordinate. 

3 0£ /novov . . . dWd is used without a Kal if the second member includes the 
first, A. 19. 26, 1 Jo. 5. 6, or as in Ph. 1. 12 dXXd iroWy jxaKkov k.t.X. 

!*v. App. p. 332. abcd Vt App. p. 324. 


in opposition to a foregoing positive sentence ('but not') : 1 C. 10. 
23 iravra e£ecrTiv, dAA' ov irdvTa o~vfA<jyepei, ibid. 5, Mt. 24. 6; it IS 
further used where no negative precedes or follows it, as in 
1 C. 6. II kcu Tavra nves ^T€, dAAd direXovo-aorOe, dAAd rjyido-drjTe, 
where one can easily supply 'but you are so no longer' and 
render aAAa by 'on the contrary': 1 C. 3. 6 eyco icfrvrevo-a, 'AttoXXQs 
iTTono-ev, dXXd 6 debs rjvgavev (but He Who gave the increase 
was not I nor he, but God), 7. 7. It stands at the beginning 
of the sentence with or without a negative : R. 10. 16 dAA' ov 
TroVres vTrrjKovo-av, where the difference is more strongly marked 
than it would be with Se, 10. 18 f. dAAd Aeyco..., 11. 4, 
1 C. 12. 24, 15. 35; similarly before commands or requests, 
A. 10. 20, 26. 16, Mt. 9. 18, Mc. 9. 22 etc.* A similar meaning 
is expressed in Mt. and Lc. (not in Acts) by irAVjv, 'yet,' 'how- 
beit' (in Acts and Mc. it is a preposition meaning 'except' as in 
class. Greek, § 40, 6 ; we also have irXr)v 6tl [class.] 'except that' 
in A. 20. 23) : Mt. 26. 39 (L. 22. 43) irXrfv ovx ws.lyw 0eAa> dAA' ws 
crv 5 = Mc. 14. 36 dAX' ovx k.t.X.; Mt. 11. 22, 24, 26. 64 irXrfv Aeyco 
vfilv, but in Mc. 9. 13 dXXd Aeyco vfj.LV (cp. Mt. 17. 12 Aeyco 8e vfiiv) ; 
Mt. 18. 7 7rXr)v oval k.t.A.,=L. 17. I oval Se (irXrjv oval Se kBDL) ; 
it even takes the place of an dAAd corresponding to a negative in 
L. 23. 28 fir) /cAatere eV kfxk, 7rXr)v e<£' eavras KXakre (dW D); 12. 29, 
3 1 (D grjTelre 8e) ; it is obvious that 7rXr)v was the regular word in 
the vulgar language. 5 (In Paul it has rather the meaning of 'only,' 1 
' in any case,' being used at the end of a discussion to emphasize the 
essential point, 1 C. 11. 11, E. 5. 33, Ph. 3. 16, 4. 14; so also in 
Ap. 2. 25, and there is a parallel use (?) in Ph. 1. 18 ri yap; irXr)v 
(om. B) on (om. DEKL) iravrl Tpowoy ... Kpicrrbs /carayyeAAerat, /cat 
kv tovto) x^P^f where ri yap appears to mean as in R. 3. 3 ' what 
matters it ? ', and irXr)v, with or without 6Vt, seems to denote ' at all 
events,' and is moreover superfluous.)— AXXd is used after an oratori- 
cal question as in class. Greek, in Jo. 12. 27 ri etTrco ; irdrep^ crcoo-ov 
/xe ... ; dAAd Sia tovto rjXOov k.t.X. (there are simpler sentences in 
7. 49, 1 C. 10. 20); or in a succession of questions (the answer being 
either given in each case or suppressed), Mt. 11. 8 f. =L. 7. 24 ff. 
rfc e^Ac9aTe...; ...dAAd tl egrjXOaTt ; k.t.X. (class.). A peculiar 
instance is H. 3. 16 Tives yap aKovcravTes irapeTTiKpavav ; dAA' ov 
-n-dvTts ol egeXOovTes e£ KlyvirTov ... ; where however the dAA' (cp. the 
Syriac VS.) may have only originated from a misunderstanding of the 
preceding Ttves as if it were rivh. 2 — 'AXXd is used in the apodosis after 
et, idv, etVep, meaning 'still,' 'at least' (class.): 1 C. 4. 15 lav fivptovs 
TratSaycoyoi^s *XV r€ * v XptcrTco, dAA' ov 7roAAoi?s iraTepas, 2 C. 4. 16, 
11. 6, (13. 4 v.L), Col. 2. 5 etc.; cp. dXXd -ye vfuv elfxi 1 C. 9. 2 (supra 
4). — Besides its use in this passage dXXd ye Kal ... is found in L. 24. 
21 (vide ibid.), introducing an accessory idea in an emphatic way, 

a Cp. Aristotle's use, Bonitz Index Arist. s.v. ifK^v. 

2 The use is different in L. 17. 7 f. ris ... ipel avrip ... dXX' ovxl epel atir$ ... ; 
'and not rather.' D here omits ovxi, according to which the second half of 
the sentence is not interrogative. a b c v. App. p. 324. 

§ 77- 13-14] PARTICLES {CONJUNCTIONS). 269 

cp. dUcLKal ibid. 22, 12. 7, 16. 21, 'not only this, but also,' as in 
Ph. 1. 18 X at P w j dXXk koI xap^a-o/xat, 2 C. 11. I ofaXov dvetx^Oe ... , 
dXXd Kal dv€X€o-6e (not only will I utter the wish, but I entreat you 
directly); to this corresponds dXX' ov8e in 1 C. 3. 2 oww yap eSvvao-Oe. 
dXX 7 ov8e en vvv Svvacde, 4. 3, A. 19. 2, L. 23. 15." ^ The simple aAAa 
also has this force of introducing an accessory idea, in 2 C. 7. 1 1 ttw?;^ 
fyuv Karrjpydo-aTo (nrovdrjv, dXXd ('and not only that, but also') 
d7roXoycav, dXXd dyavaKTTjcnv, dXXd <j>6f3ov k.t.X. (aAAa 6 times re- 
peated). 6 We further have aAAot pevovv ye (without ye in BDF al.) Kal 
(om. K*) rjyovfiac Ph. 3. 8, cp. inf. 14. — Notice must be taken of the 
elliptical d\V tva 'on the contrary (but) this has happened (or a 
similar phrase) in order that/ Mc. 14. 49, Jo. 1. 8, 9. 3, 13. 18, 
15. 25 ; but this must be distinguished from Mc. 4. 22 ov yap ecmv 
Tt KpviTTOV, edv p.r) Iva <^avepo)0fj' ov8e eyevero diroKpvfov, dXV I'va e'A#?7 
€ts cfravepov, where aAA' = el firj ' save that,' and from the use of aAA' 
(i.e. dXXo) tj in L. 12. 51 O^XS Aeyto t)//4i/, aAA' 77 (D aAAa) ScafJiepLcrfxov, 
6 nothing else but' (classical, Kiihner ii. 2 824, 5 and 6, 825 note 4), 
cp. 2 0. 1. 13 ov yap aAAa ... aAA' (aAA' om. BFG) ?} (om. A) a (om. 
AD*) avayti/coo-Kere 1 (aAA' rj is an interpolation in 1 C. 3. 5), Clem. 
Cor. i. 41. 2. 

14. Other adversative particles are pivroi 'however,' ov(§els) {levroi 
Jo. 4. 27, 7. 13, 20. 5, 21. 4 (Herm. Sim. vi. 1. 6), <Sjxo>s iw'vtoi 12. 42; 
this particle occurs very rarely except in John, viz. 6 /xevTot #e/xeAios 
2 Tim. 2. 19, Ja. 2. 8, Jd. 8 (in the two last passages with a weaker 
meaning = 'but.'). "O|i<os apart from the instance quoted occurs only 
again in 1 C. 14. 7, G-. 3. 15, where it is used in a peculiar way: 
o/xws Tot cu/o>x<x 4>o>vrjv StSovra ..., edv StacrToXrjv <£>66yyov //,?} £o>, 7rws 
yi/cocr^^CT-eTat k.t.A., and o/zcos dvOpuirov KeKvpu)jJLevr)v 8ia6rjK7)V ovSels 
dderei • the latter passage is explained (Fritzsche) as a substitution 
for Kaiirep dvOp., o/xcu? ovSels dO. ' if it be only a man's will, yet,' some- 
what like Xenoph. Cyrop. v. 1. 26 o-vv crol opus Kal ev ry voXe^'ia 
ovres Oappovfjiev, Kiihner p. 645; but as in both passages a comparison 
is introduced by it, and as ovrws also follows in the passage of 1 Cor., 
it appears to be rather an instance of the old word 6/xws 'in like 
manner' being brought into play, which should accordingly be 
rendered simply by 'also' or 'likewise.' 2 — KatToi in classical Greek 
means 'and yet,' and rarely takes a participle with the meaning 
' although,' cp. § 74, 2 ; in the N.T. it introduces a parenthesis in 

Jo. 4. 2 Kairoiye (§ 77, 4) 'I^crovs avTos ovk efidirTitev k.t.X. ( = 'although 
He did not baptize'), and has a more independent character in A. 
14. 17, though here also it may be rendered 'although ' (on A. 17. 27 
see § 74, 2 ; for Kairoi with a participle H. 4. 3). — Kal jjltjv 'and yet' 
(class.) does not occur in the N.T. ; but Hermas uses it in Mand. iv. 1. 

1 "AAA' is rendered pleonastic by a preceding dWos, but the use is nevertheless 
not unclassical, at least according to the traditional text, Kiihner 824, 6. 

2 Clem. Horn. i. 15 ( = Epitom. 14) has Kal opus 'ifxadov Kal t£ ttvX&vl tirecrTrjv,- 
ajuLa i at the same time ' ; xix. 23 Kal ojjlCos roLavrd riva fivpia k.t.X. , = /cat b/xolcos, 
cp. iii. 15. (In 1 C. I.e. the accentuation 6/zw? is supported by Wilke Neut. 
Rhetorik, p. 225.) a h v. App. p. 324. 

2 ;o PARTICLES {CONTINUED). [§ 77. 14. § 78. 1. 

8, v. 1. 7, with an intensifying force in an answer, somewhat like 
immo (class., Kiihner ii. 2 690. — Mev ofiv in classical Greek is specially 
used in answers with heightening or corrective force, and is always 
so placed that the fiev here as in other cases has another word before 
it ; but in the N.T. [levovv or fxevovvye with the same meaning stands 
at the beginning of a sentence: L. 11. 28 fxevovv (ins. ye B y CD al.) 
/jLOLKapLOL ol k.t.\. ('rather'), E. 9. 20 (ye is omitted by B only), 10. 18 
fxevovvye ({xevovvye om. FGr) ; we also find dXXd fievovv(ye) in Ph. 3. 8, 
vide supra 13. Cp. Phryn. Lob. 342. But the classical position of 
the word is seen in 1 C. 6. 4 /3icoriK<x /mv ovv Kpnr\pia k.t.X., cp. 7 
(ovv om. «*D*). 

§ 78. PARTICLES (continued). 

1. The comparative particles which are followed by a subordinate 
clause are cos and wo-irep, also frequently in nearly all writers kci6ws, a 
Hellenistic word, see Phrynicus p. 425 Lob., who strongly disapproves 
of it and requires instead KaGd (only in Mt. 27. 10 O.T. and L. 1. 2 
according to D and Euseb., certainly the right reading, see p. 49 on 
wape8ocrav) or ko.0o (which is found in E. 8. 26, 2 C. 8. 12, 1 P. 4. 13); 
the equally Attic form KaBdirep occurs only in Paul and Hebrews. 
The uses of cos are manifold, and some of them, as being too well 
known and commonplace, need not be discussed at all in this 
grammar. The correlative terms are «s (coo-n-ep, kclOus, KaOdwep) 
- oik-cos or otfrcos kcu ; or the term corresponding to cos may be simply 
kolI, as in Mt. 6. 10, or again kcu may be attached to cos and may 
even stand in both portions of the comparison, as in E. 1. 13 ha rivet 
Kapwov (T\Qt kcu ev fyuv, KaOws kcu Iv rois Xolttois eOveo-tv, Mt. 18. 33 
etc. (as in class. Greek, Kiihner p. 799, 2). — When used to introduce 
a sentence cos and more particularly KaOm may also to some extent 
denote a reason : E. 1. 28 kcx#cos ovk JSo/a/zacrav rbv Oebv e^eiv ev 
eViyvaxrei, irape8(s)K€v avrovs 6 #eos k.t.X. (' even as ' = ' since/ quando- 
quidem), 1 C. 1. 6, 5. 7, E. 1. 4, Ph. 1. 7 (Mt. 6. 12 cos /ecu ^eis 
a^/ca/xev, =L. 11. 4 Kal yap avrol dc^io/xev), cp. cos with a partic. 
§ 74, 6. — A parable is introduced by cos in Mc. 13. 34, by tienrep yap 
(yap om. D) in 25. 14, though no corresponding term follows, and 
there is also no close connection with the preceding words, cp. 81, 2. 
— Before ideas the place of cos is taken by wcret (especially in the 
Gospels and Acts, also in Herm. Sim. vi. 2. 5, ix. 11. 5), with much 
variety of reading in the mss.; this particle is also used before 
numerical ideas = 'about,' Mt. 14. 21 (D cos), Jo. 4. 6 (cos has prepon- 
derant evidence) etc. (classical) ; wo-rapei (in comparisons) only occurs 
in 1 C. 15. 8 (toenrep D*) and as a v.l. in 4. 13 ; coo-av (cos dv) only in 
2 C. 10. 9 wa-av ('as it were') l/c^o^eiv, cp. § 70, 5. A very wide use 
is made of cos in connection with a predicate, whether in the nomina- 
tive, Mt. 22. 30 cos dyyeXoi Oeov eicriv, 18. 3 eotv jultj yevrjcrOe cos rot 
TrcuSia, 1 C. 7. 7 eotv /xetvcocriv cos Kay to, or in the accusative, L. 15. 19 
TroL7]cr6v fxe cos eva rwv julmtOlmv <rov, especially with the verbs 
Xoyi^o-0 at, -qyela-Oai etc., § 34, 5 (all unclassical uses ; but in the 
LXX. we have in Gen. 3. 5 ecreo-Oe cos Oeot, — class. IcroOeoi, or ia-a /<cu 

§ 78- 1-2.] PARTICLES {CONTINUED). 2 yi 

deol according to Thuc. iii. 14, cp. [§ 76, 1] ehai to-a OeQ Ph. 2. 6). 
With rr)v lo-qv ws koI fjfjLiv A. 11. 1 7 cp. classical exx. in Kiihner 361, 
note 18. HopevearOat ws (ews tfABE) eVt rrjv OdXavcrav A. 17. 14 is a 
Hellenistic usage, ws en-l = versus in Polyb. i. 29. 1 etc., see Wetstein 
ad loc; d>s rdx^ra ibid. 15 is classical (literary language; § 44, 3). 
On cos with a par tic. and in abbreviated sentences see § 74, 6. On 
exclamatory cos § 76, 3; cos (ws 6Vt) in assertions § 70, 2; on temporal 
& infra 3 ; with an infinitive § 69, 3. 

2. The hypothetical particles are & and edv, see § 65, 4 and 5; a 
Paul (and 1 Pet. 2. 3, but k*AB read et) also uses efrrep 'if on the 
other hand/ E. 3. 30 (v.l. cVetVc/)), 8. 9, 17, 2 Th. 1. 6, referring to 
an alternative condition (or fact) ; edvirep is similarly used in H. 3 (6 
v.l.) 14, 6. 3 ; but the particle is differently used in 1 0. 8. 5 Kal yap 
eiirep elorlv Xeyofxevot Oeol ..., dXX , -tj/jllv els 6 Oeos, where it has a con- 
cessive sense, ' however true it may be that/ as in Homer (Kiihner 
991, note 2) 1 . Efye is similarly used, but makes a more definite 
assumption (G. Hermann), § 77, 4. The correlative terms in use are 
€l'T€... ei'T€ (idv re ... kdv re R 14. 8 twice), only found in Paul and 
1 Peter, either with a finite verb, as in 1 C. 10. 31 eire oHv ko-OUre 

€LT€ 7TLV€T6 €LT€ TL 7TOfc€6Te, TTaVTa €L$ 86£<XV OeOV 7TOt€tT€, ' whether it be 

that ... or that/ or still more frequently without a verb by abbrevia- 
tion (classical, Kiihner 839), ibid. 3. 21 f. irdvra yap vp.Q>v kcrnv, eire 
UavXos eire 'AttoXXcos eire Kt^cxs, where perhaps no definite verb can 
be supplied, but the meaning is 'whether one mentions/ c whether it 
be/ 'whether one is concerned with' 2 ; similarly 13. 8 eire 8e nrpo- 
<^rjrelai, KarapyrjOrjarovrai, eire yAwcro-at, iravcrovrai, eire k.t.A., and 
R. 12. 6 if. eyovres 8e yaplcrpLara ... eire 7rpo(f>r]reLav (sc. e^ovres), /caret 
rrjv . . . : eire StaKOvtav, kv ...'. eire 6 SiSoxtkcdv, ev rfj 8i8a<jKaXia' eire o 
irapaKaktov, kv k.t.X. The meaning of eire... eire in such passages 
approximates very closely to that of Kal . . . Kal, and the construction 
is also of the same character as that with Kal ; the passage R. 12. 7 
like other cases of enumeration (R 2. 17-20 ; § 79, 3) concludes with 
an asyndeton, 6 fieradiSovs kv dwXorrjri K.r.X. — Further correlative 
terms are €l jAev...el 8e, as in A. 18. 14 f.; here we may note the 
thoroughly classical suppression of the first apodosis in L. 13. 9 Kav 
fjbev iTOiiqo-rj Kapirov (sc. it is well)' el 8e ^ye, eKKOxfseis avrijv (cp. 
Kiihner 986). On el 8e p), el 8e pajre (the second protasis being 
abbreviated) see §77,4; on el (kdv) firj (n) ' except/ ' except that ' 
see §§ 65, 6 : 75, 3. In imitation of Hebrew el is used after formulas 
of swearing ( = Hebr. ti&f: Mc. 8. 12 dfxrjv Xeyco vplu, el ('there shall 
not') 8o6rjorerai rrj yei/ea ravry trrjfjLeiov (cp. Mt. 16. 4 a principal seri- 

1 We also have 1 C. 15. 15 6i> (top X/>.) ovk ijyeipev, eiirep dpa veicpoi o-uk iyeipovrai, 
but the clause eiirep ... iyeip. is absent (through homoeoteleuton ? cp. 16) in DE 
and other witnesses ; the sense can perfectly well dispense with it, and is 
better without it ; moreover the classical use of dpa {' as they say ') is remark- 
able. Here also eiirep means ' if on the other hand ' (as they say). 

2 For this in 2 C. 8. 23 we have eire vir£p Tirov, kolvcouos e/xos k.t.X., but here 
again the sentence continues in the nominative, el're adeXifiol ijfxQv, airdo-roXoi 
tKK\ wl Qv. »> v . A p p . p . 32 4. 

272 PARTICLES {CONTINUED). [§ 78. 2-5. 

tence with ov), H. 3. 1 1 = 4. 3 O.T. ; there is a corresponding use of 
et firj 'will certainly' in E. 14. 11 O.T. according to D*FG, v.l. 6Vt 
as in lxx. Is. 45. 23 (but the lxx. in the same verse uses et pr) 
similarly, only not immediately before e/xot /ca/^ei etc.). — On con- 
cessive et /cat, lav /cat etc. see § 65, 6 ; on et in indirect and direct 
questions, and its use to express expectation (also expressed by et A 
ttws, si forte) see §§ 65, 1 and 6 ; 77, 2. 

3. The temporal particles, used to denote time when, are ore, orav, 
OTroTe ; eVdV Mt. 2. 8 (orav D), L. 11. 22 (Jctv D), 34 (orav D) (eVetS?? is 
generally causal, as is eTreiorjirep ; eVetS?? in temporal sense only occurs 
in L. 7. 1 with vv.ll. eVet, ore), and exceptionally in Paul rjvtKa (a 
literary word, but also found in LXX. e.g. Exod. 1. 10, Deut. 7. 12 : 
Paul takes it from lxx., see Ex. 34. 34) 2 C. 3. 15 f. (a particle which 
strictly refers to a period of an hour or a year, but is already in 
Attic used interchangeably with ore). Another equally rare word is 
67roTe, if it is correctly read in L. 6. 3 oirore (6Ve tfBCDL al., as in 
Mt., Mc.) e-rreivacrev. In addition to these we find o>s not unfrequently 
used in the narrative of Luke (Gospel and Acts) and John : L. 1. 23, 
o)S eirXrjcrQrjcrav at rj/jbepai, Jo. 2. 9 a>s Se eyevcraro 6 apxiTpii<\ivos k.t.X. 
(classical ; lxx. especially 1 Mace, Win. -Grimm) ; in Paul we have 
R/. 15. 24 o>s au TropevojfjLai ets rrjv ILivaviav 'in my approaching journey 
to Spain,' 1 0. 11. 34 cos dv eXOco 'when I come (shall come), 5 Ph. 2. 23 
d>s av acj>i8(o — a use of o>s av which finds only distant parallels in 
classical Greek 1 ; it takes the pres. indie, in G. 6. 10 cos Kacpbv exofxev 
(male -to/xev kB*) cum, 'now while' (Clem. Cor. ii. 8. 1, 9. 7), and in 
L. 12. 58 ws yap vwayeis ... eV ap^ovra, ev rfj 68co (Mt. 5. 25 is differ- 
ently expressed, using ecus 6rov ; in Lc. eoos iVayets would be tauto- 
logical beside kv rfj 6Sw). — Time during which is expressed, as in 
classical Greek, by ecus (with a present), Jo. 9. 4 e<os r\\xepa k<niv, cp. 
12. 35 f, where in 35 ABD al., and in 36 the same MSS. with », read 
ws, which after the instances of cos that have been quoted is not 
impossible, though the meaning ' as long as ' appears more correct at 
least in verse 35 2 ; see also Mc. 6. 45, Jo. 21. 22, 1 Tim. 4. 13, § 65, 
10. Elsewhere for 'as long as' we have ecos orov Mt. 5. 25 (as ecos 
has become a preposition, § 40, 6), or dx/ots ov H. 3. 13, A. 27. ^^, or 
ev § Mc. 2. 19, L. 5. 34, Jo. 5. 7. The same expressions together 
with ecos ov, axPh /^Xi 06 ' /^XP 6 °^ when used with the aor. conj. (or 
fut. indie.) mean 'until,' § Q5, 9 and 10. — 'Before' is irpCv, irpiv r/, 
usually with an infinitive ; also irpo rov with an infin., ibid. 

4. For the final particles I'va, 6ircos, p.rj see § 65, 2 ; on the extended 
use of tVa, § 69 ; on /jltj, fJbrjTrcos, jxr}iroTe after <fx)/3eicr0aL etc. § 65, 3. — 
For assertions with 8™ (ws, 7rcos), § 70; for indirect questions with 

et (irorepov ... rj Jo. 7. 17), § 77, 2. 

5. The consecutive subordinating particles are coorre, see § 69, 3, and 
iva, ibid. — With a co-ordinate construction oSv is particularly fre- 
quent, being one of the commonest of the particles in the N.T., and 
fairly represented in all writings, though a far larger use is made of 

1 2 v. App. p. 332. 

§ 78. 5.] PARTICLES (CONTINUED). 273 

it in narrative than in epistolary style, and the greatest of all in 
John's Gospel (whereas in the Johannine Epistles it only occurs in 
3 Jo. 8 [being interpolated in 1 Jo. 2. 24, 4. 19]). Of course it does 
not always imply a strictly causal connection, but may be used in a 
looser way of a temporal connection, and therefore to resume or con- 
tinue the narrative. Luke is accustomed in the Acts, if the narrative 
sentence begins with a noun or pronoun (or a participle with the 
article), to emphasize the ovv by the addition of [xkv, which need not 
be succeeded by a contrasted clause with Se: 1. 6 ot jiev ovv 
o-vveXOovres k.t.X., 18 ovros p*v ovv k.t.X., 2. 41 ot filv ovv aVoSe^a/xei/oi, 
9. 31 at ph o\)v iKKXrjo-iai etc.; this combination of particles is used 
sometimes to state what further took place, sometimes to summarize 
the events which have been previously narrated, before passing on 
to something new (cp. for the class, use Kiihner 711); the same use 
occurs in Luke's Gospel 3. 18 TroXXa jjlcv ovv kcu €T€pa TrapatcaXwv 
€vr)yyeXi£eTo rbv Xaov (the only instance of fJLev ovv in that Gospel). 
The simple ovv is used after a participle in A. 10. 23 (15. 2 v.l.), 16. 

11, 25. 17 (cp. 26. 22 etc.); in Luke's Gospel only in 23. 16 = 22; 
D has it also in 5. 7. Odv is used after parenthetical remarks to 
indicate a recurrence to the original subject in Jo. 4. 45, 6. 24, 1 C. 
8. 4, 11. 20 (also classical, but the classical Se o$v to indicate this 
recurrence is unrepresented). The interrogative ovkow ' therefore,' 
' then' (Kiihner 715 f.) occurs only in Jo. 18. 37 ovkovv fiao-tXevs et 
crvf On fiev o$v, fievovv see § 77. 14. — Another consecutive particle is 
dpa 'therefore,' 'consequently,' especially frequent in Paul, who 
sometimes makes it, as in classical Greek, the second word in the 
sentence, E-. 7. 21 evplo-Kco apa, sometimes contrary to classical usage 
the first, as in R. 10. 17 apa (FG a. o$v) rj via-ns e£ aKorjs, 1 C. 15. 18, 
2 C. 7. 1 2 etc. (H. 4. 9) ; we also find the strengthened form apa o$v 
R. 5. 18, 7. 3, 25, 8. 12, 9. 16, 18 etc., G. 6. 10, E. 2. 19 (om. ovv 
EG), 1 Th. 5. 6, 2 Th. 2. 15. It is strengthened by ye and given 
the first position in the sentence in Mt. 7. 20, 17. 26, A. 11. 18 
EHLP, where other MSS. have apa as in L. 11. 48 (for which Mt. 23. 
31 uses wo-Te with indie). Also in an apodosis after a protasis with 
€t, the simple apa is always used and is always the first word : Mt. 

12. 28 = L. 11. 20, 2 C. 5. 14 according to X C C* al. (most MSS. omit 
€t, but it would easily be dropped before ets), G. 2. 21 (ibid. 18 inter- 
rogatively, therefore apa § 77, 2), 3. 25, H. 12. 8. On IVet apa in 
Paul cp. inf. 6; on apa, apa in interrogative sentences § 77, 2. — 
Another quite rare particle is Toivapoflv (classical), 1 Th. 4. 8, H. 12. 1, 
placed at the beginning of a sentence; and roivw is not much 
commoner, standing as the second word (as in class. Greek) in 
L. 20. 25 ACP al., as the first word (unclassical 1 ) in kBL, and omitted 
in D (as it is in Mc. 12. 17 ; Mt. 22. 21 has o$v); as second word 
also in 1 C. 9. 26 (in Ja. 2. 24 it is spurious), as first word in H. 13. 13 
(Clem. Cor. i. 15. 1). — Another particle of kindred meaning is 8-/j, 
which is found (though rarely) according to classical usage in sen- 
tences containing a request, 1 C. 6. 20 So^do-are 8rj (' therefore ') rbv 

1 But found in other late writers, see Lob. Phryn. 342. a v. App. p. 324. 


274 PARTICLES {CONTINUED). [§ 78. 5-6. 

Odbv k.t.X. (but tf* and some Latin witnesses omit 8r) and present an 
asyndeton) ; in L. 2. 15, A. 13. 2, 15. 36 at the beginning of a speech 
('come now'); a quite different and thoroughly classical use of it 
occurs in Mt. 13. 23 05 Srj Kapiro^opel 'who is just the man who' (for 
os Srj D has roVe, the Vulgate and others et). — Lastly we have the 
consecutive particle 810, i.e. 6Y o, and therefore strictly used to intro- 
duce a subordinate relative sentence, but its subordinating character 
is forgotten, Mt. 27. 8, L. 1. 35 (A* wrongly has Slotl, which is often 
confused with Slo) : in the latter passage we have the combination, 
also a favourite one in classical Greek, 1 Slo kolI, and the corresponding 
Slo ovSe in 7. 7; it is frequent in the Acts and Epistles; we also have 
Stoirep 1 0. 8. 13, 10. 14 (in 14. 13 most MSS. read Sib). "OQev is 
similarly used in Mt. 14. 7, A. 26. 19, and often in Hebrews, e.g. 
2. 17, 3. 1, denoting a reason like our 'hence.' 2 

6. The principal causal subordinating particle is 6™ 'because,' for 
which Luke and Paul (H., Ja., 1 P.) also use 8i6ti (classical). But 
the subordination both with on and Slotl is often a very loose one (cp. 
Std, oOev, supra 5), so that it must be translated 'for': 1 C. 1. 25 on 
to poypbv tov Oeov crocfywTepov r(av avOpuTrwv ecrnv k.t.A., 4. 9, 10. 17 
2 C. 4. 6, 7. 8, 14, with 8l6tl E. 1. 19, 21, 3. 20, 8. 7 (6Vt FG) etc." 
Akin to the use of otl = Slotl is that of hrel, which in the N.T. is 
regularly a causal particle : E. 3. 6 e7ret (' for ') ttws /c^ei o <9ebs tov 
Koo-pov, where as in other passages it has the additional meaning of 'if 
otherwise ' (class., Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 31 etc.), which it has in assertions in 
E. 11. 6 eirel r) \apLS ovkgtl ytveTaL X^P^i 22 * 7reL Kai °"^ €KK07rrjo-y. 
'EireiSri, which is likewise a causal particle (supra 3), has not this 
additional meaning, though like otl it implies a loose subordination : 
1 C. 14. 16 (B e7T€t), 1. 22 (FG eirel). 'EimSfyn^p occurs only in 
L. 1. 1 'inasmuch as already,' referring to a fact already well known, 
cp. eiTrep supra 2! — On k<f> o> cp. supra § 43, 3 ; on kcc<9c6s supra 1. 
KciGoti (only in Luke) strictly means ' according as,' ' just as/ and is 
so used in A. 2. 45, 4. 35 ; but in Hellenistic Greek it passes over to 
the meaning of Slotl : L. 1. 7 KaOoTL rjv rj 'EAtcra/3eT crTeipa, 19. 9, 

A. 17. 31 (Slotl HLP). — The co-ordinating particle is -yap, one of the 
commonest of the particles (least often, in comparison with the rest 
of the N.T., in John, especially in his Epistles ; there are also not 
many instances of it in the Apocalypse). Its usages agree with the 
classical usages ; it is also frequently found in questions, where we 
use 'then,' Mt. 27. 23 n yap kclkov eiroLrjcrev ; 'what evil then has he 
done ?', A. 8. 31 nm yap av Swaip^v ; giving the reason for a denial 
or refusal which is left unexpressed, or for a reproach (whether 
expressed or not) as in Mt. 9. 5 n yap Io-tlv evKoiruTepov k.t.A., 23. 17 
pLODpol Kal Tv<j)\oL, Tt's yap k.t.A., A. 19. 35 etc., unless it should be 
rendered literally by ' for who,' as in L. 22. 27.° In answers it corrobo- 
rates a statement about which a question has been raised (Kiihner 
ii. 724), 'yes in truth,' 'indeed/ as in 1 C. 9. 10 r] 6Y r)pas 7ravrws 

1 HJ.g. in Aristotle's 'AOrjvaicov iroXiTeia. 
2 Aristot. 'A0. ttoX. 3. 2 etc. 

a b e v. App. pp. 324-325. 

§ 78- 6-7. § 79- I-] PARTICLES {CONTINUED). 275 

Xeyu ; (an oratorical question) oY yy/xas yap (ypd<j>7], 1 Th. 2. 20 (and 
it is similarly used where a statement is repeated, E. 15. 26 f. 

7]v8oKr)(rav yap rjvSoKTjcrav yap, Kal k.t.X.) ; there is a somewhat 

different use after an indignant question in A. 1 6. 37 of ov yap, non pro- 
fecto (classical ; see the author's note on the passage), and a different 
use again in Jo. 9. 30 in the retort of the man born blind, eV rovro) yap 
(ovv D) to davfjLao-rov io-nv, on k.t.X., which is equivalent to an inter- 
rogative (vide supra) ov yap ev tovtm k.t.X. — Kal Y&p is 'for also/ so 
that there is no closer connection between the two particles ( = €7rei8rj 
Kal) ; the well-known use of Kal yap for etenim (Kuhner 855), where 
Kal quite loses its force, is sometimes traced in passages like 1 C. 5. 7, 
11. 9, 12. 13 (where ovtus Kal 6 Xp. precedes); but in reality Kal 
keeps its meaning of ' also ' in these places, though it refers not to a 
single idea, but to the whole sentence. 1 (Kcu yap = etenim seems, 
however, really to occur in H. 5. 12, 12. 29 and in L. 22. 37 [D omits 
yap], cp. Jo. 12. 39 D Kal yap instead of 6Vt.) Ov8e yap is similarly 
used in R 8. 7 (but in Jo. 8. 42, where D reads ov yap, it rather = 
neque enim, corresponding to a positive etenim ; according to Chrys. 
and the Lewis Syr. kcu air e/x. ovk k.t.X.). In re yap R 7. 7 re has 
nothing whatever to do with yap : if tc and yap are genuine (re is 
omitted by FG and the Latin mss.), one must suppose it to be an 
instance of anacoluthon. 

7. The concessive subordinating particles are & Kal, lav Kal, § 65, 6; 
also k&v meaning 'even if,' Mt. 21. 21, 26. 35, Jo. 8. 14, 10. 38; on 
the other hand Kal el is only found, where the reading is certain, in 
the sense of 'and if (Mc. 14. 27 el Kal «BC al., Kal kav or k&v D, Kal 
el A al.; 2 C. 13. 4 Kal yap el K C A al., which is more correct than Kal 
yap without el as read by K*BD*F al. ; Origen reads el yap Kal, see 
Tisch.). On Kaiircp, KaiToi with a participle, and /catrot(ye) with a 
finite verb see § 74, 2. Kalroi takes alternately a hypotactical or a 
paratactical construction, vide ibid., as it alternately has an adversa- 
tive or a concessive meaning, § 77, 14. — On the use of fywos corre- 
sponding to classical Ka'nrep vide ibido 


1. We find the methods of connecting sentences in Greek already 
divided in Aristotle's terminology 2 into two opposite classes, namely 
the continuous or running style (elpofxevr]) and the compact (Kar€- 
<rrpaji.|j.€VT]) or periodic style (ev 7repLo8oLs). In the latter the whole 
discourse is subdivided into units consisting of coherent and well- 
balanced members ; in the former the subsequent section is always 
loosely appended to the section preceding it, and there is never a 
definite conclusion within view of the reader. The periodic style is 
characteristic of artistically developed prose, the continuous style is 
that which we find in the oldest, and still quite unsophisticated, 
prose, and on the whole is that which characterizes the N.T. narrative, 

1 On 2 C. 13. 4 vide inf. 7. The classical use also appears in Herm. Sim. ix. 
8. 2 Kal yap (etenim) Kal (*also J ) oSrot k.t.\, 
2 Arist. Rhet. iii. 9. 


agreeing as it does with the manner of the Semitic models on which 
that narrative is based. To the idea which is given the first place and 
which is complete in itself there is appended a second and similar idea, 
the connecting link being in most cases kou = Hebrew 1, then follows 
a third, and so on in an unending series : this tedious character of 
uniformity is an especially noticeable feature of the narrative of 
Mark, but is also not wanting in the Gospels of Matthew, Luke and 
John. Another class of continuous style is that where the opening 
sentence is developed by appending to it a participle, or a clause 
introduced by on, or a relative sentence, or in some similar way, 
since in this case also there is no end or termination in view ; this 
manner of writing, which is freely employed by Paul in large portions 
of the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians, is indeed still more 
tedious and presents still greater obscurity than the simple linking 
together of sentences by means of kclL 

2. Besides the connection of clauses by means of a conjunction, a 
relative, a subordinate participle etc., there is further the uncon- 
nected or paratactical construction (known as asyndeton); this is on 
the whole repugnant to the spirit of the Greek language, both with 
regard to sentences and the members which compose them, as also 
with regard to parallel portions of a single clause, and accordingly 
in the N.T. also is only used to a limited extent. Those sentences 
are not to be regarded as strict cases of asyndeton, where the new 
sentence begins with a demonstrative pronoun or a demonstrative 
adverb, referring back to something which has preceded: A. 16. 3 
tovtov (Timothy) rjOeXrjo-ev 6 UavXos crvv avro) k^eXOelv, Jo. 5. 6 
tovtov IS&v k.t.X. (ibid. 21. 21 AX al., but kBCD have tovtov ovv), a 
the person having been previously introduced and described; a quite 
parallel instance may be quoted e.g. from Demosth. 21. 58 2avvia>v 
'io~TLv Stjttov Tis...' ovtos dcrTpaTeias rjXoi ...' tovtov fieToi k.t.X. An 
unckssical use, on the other hand, is that of totc as a connecting 
particle, which is particularly characteristic of Matthew, though also 
occurring in Luke (esp. in the Acts), to introduce something which 
was subsequent in point of time, not something which happened at a 
definite point of time: Mt. 2. 7 totc c Hp(^8r)s k.t.X., 16, 17, 3. 5, 13, 15, 
4. 1, 5, 10, II etc., L. 14. 21 (D /cat), 21. 10 totc eXeyev olvtols (om. D), 
24. 45, A. 1. 12, 4. 8 etc. (esp. frequent in D, e.g. 2. 14, 37); John uses 
the combination tot€ o$v, 11. 14 (ow om. A Syr.), 19. 1, 16, 20, 8, totc 
in that case having a fuller meaning ' at this time ' (as opposed to pre- 
vious time). Other circumstantial formulas with similar meaning, 
which can hardly be interpreted in their literal sense, are : Mt. 11. 25, 
12. 1 kv e/cetva) to> KaipQ> (14. I, where D has kv £k. 8e), iv eKetVYj Trj 
&pa Mt. 18. 7 (kv €K. 8e BM), kv e/cetVats (Sk add. D) Tats 07/xepats Mc. 

8. 1 (kv 8e tolls rjfi. kK. Mt. 3. 1, but DE al. om. 8e) ; kv avTjj (8e add. 

D) Trj wyoot L. 10. 21 (7. 21 V.l. kv kKeivrj t. w.; with 81 AD al.). 'A7TO 
tot€ may also be noticed in Mt. 4. 17 (with yap in D), 16. 21, L. 16. 
16 (koX d. r. Mt. 26. 16). Mera tovto (towto) without a conjunction 
is frequent in Jo., s 2. 12, 3. 22, 5. 1, 14, 6. 1 etc. (in 19. 38 /xera 
Se t., but 81 is omitted by EGK al.), and the Apocalypse (4. 1, 7. 9, 

a b v. App. p. 325. 


18. 1, 19. 1, 20. 3, with Kol 7. 1 [/cat om. AC], 15. 5); see also A. 
1 8. 1 according to kAB (v.L fiera Se tclvto), and the reading of nearly 
all Greek mss. in L. 10. 1, 18. 4. — In the case of frmTa and efra 
Attic Greek is not fond of inserting a Se (Kriiger Gr. § 69, 24), and 
the N.T. usage is the same, L. 16. 7, Jo. 11. 7, Mc. 4. 17 etc. (Ja. 4. 14 
€71-. /cat kABK, €77. 8e Kol only LP). a The N.T. also uses i™ without 
a conjunction : L. 8. 49 ert avrov XaXovvros, A. 10. 44, Mc. 5. 35, 
Mt. 17. 5, 12. 46 (with Se CE ah), cp. 26. 47 (where Latin mss. omit 
the conj., and there are var. lect. /cat hi and en 8e). b 

3. Asyndeton between individual words or ideas is quite a natural 
occurrence for the sake of convenience in lengthy enumerations, but 
here there is a tendency at any rate to connect the words in pairs to 
avoid ambiguity, see § 77, 9, until at last even this becomes tedious 
to the writer, 1 Tim. 1. 9, 10 ; still, if the ideas are not strictly summed 
up, but merely enumerated, the use of asyndeton may be an actual 
necessity. Thus we have in 1 P. 4. 3 Treiropevpievovs kv dcreAyetats, 
kiridvixiais, olvo(j>\vy lolls, kc^/ulols, ttotols /cat dde/uLLrois etSwAoAaryotats 
(with the last word the adjective necessitates the insertion of /cat) ; 
the use of /cat in this passage would lay too great a charge against 
individual persons. 2 Tim. 3. 2 ecrovrcu ol dvOpunrot <f>i\avrot, c/>tAap- 
yvpoL, dAa^oves, vireprjcfiavoL, f3kdcr<prjfjLOL /c.t.A. (but the same men do 
not possess all these faults). If the particle is used in enumerations 
of this kind, the construction is known as polysyndeton, a figure of 
speech which may be used just as well as asyndeton for a rhetorical 
purpose, only in a different way : polysyndeton by evidently summing 
up the different ideas produces an impression of greatness and fulness, 
asyndeton, by breaking up the separate ideas and introducing them one 
after the other in a jerky manner, gives an impression of vivacity and 
excitement. Still neither asyndeton nor polysyndeton is used with 
a rhetorical effect in every case where they occur: L. 18. 29 ( = Mt. 
19. 29, Mc. 10. 29) ovSek eo-Ttv 6s d<£^/c€v ot/ctW rj ywat/ca r) dSeXcfrovs 
/c.t.A. cannot well be otherwise expressed; also L. 14. 21 tovs 7tt(i)x°vs 
/cat dvairelpovs /cat rvcfrXovs /cat yjmXovs elcrdyaye S8e is a simple and 
straightforward expression, no less than Jo. 5. 3 irXfjOos twv da-Oe- 
vovvtojv, rv<j)Xu)v x^^uv £rjpojv (in the latter passage /cat would be 
superfluous, in Lc it is not so because the different persons are 
summed up). Where there are only two ideas N.T. (like classical) 
Greek is not fond of asyndeton, except where opposites are connected, 
as in 2 Tim. 4. 2 eirLo-rrjOi ei'/cat/xos dfcatpws, cp. aVa> /caVco, nolens volens, 
Kiihner 865 d, Win. § 58, 7 1 . But polysyndeton is used with a 
really rhetorical effect in E-. 9. 4 3>v r) vloOt&la kcu r) 86£a kol at 
SiaOrJKaL kol r) vo/uLoOtcria kol r) Xarpela kol at IVayyeAtat (cp. 2. 17 ff.), 
Or in Ap. 5. 12 XajSelv rr)v Svvafjuv kol ttXovtov /cat crocj>[av /cat uryyv 
/cat TLfxrjv /cat Sd£av /cat evXoytav ; just as asyndeton is used in 1 C. 
3. 12 €t tls eVot/co§o/A€t eVt rbv OefieXtov \pv(rlov, dpyvpov, XlBovs rt/ztot/s, 

1 If the negative idea (with ov)' is attached to the positive, ical may be in- 
serted or omitted: 1 C. 10. 20 dai/JLovLoLs /cat ov deep, 3. 2 yd\a..., ov (3pQ[ta 
(DEFG ins. /cat), 7. 12 etc. a b c v ^ ^pp. p. 325. 


£t'Aa, x°P T °v, KaXdfxrjv, which should be recited in a vivid way, giving 
emphasis to the studied anti-climax. 

4. If the connected ideas are finite verbs, this leads us at once to 
asyndeton between sentences; but there are certain imperatives 
which deserve a separate mention. Mt. 5. 24 tiTrcrye irpwrov 8caXXdyr)6i, 
8. 4 etc. (18. 15 waye eXeygov nBD, a v.l. inserts /cat; similarly Mc 
6. 38 ; but in Ap. 16. 1 all uncials have /cat), cp. the classical use of 
aye and Wi (N.T. does not use epxov thus, but has e. Kal t8e Jo. 1. 47, 
11. 34, Ap. 6. 1, 3, 5, 7 [in Ap. there is a cwratf v.l., omitting /cat 
«$e]) ; <ty€i,p€ apoi/ Mc. 2. 1 1 (in 9 most MSS. insert /cat), but in L. 6. 8 
only A has ey. o-ttjOl, and there is preponderant evidence for /cat, in 
Mt. 9. 6 tfC al. read eyepOels dpov, B reads as in Mc, D eyetpe /cat 
apoi/: we further have eyetpecrOe ayufiev in Mt. 26. 46 = Mc. 14. 42; 
also dvdo-Ta is so used at least as a v.l. of D* in A. 11. 7 dvdo-ra Herpe 
Ovo-ov, § 74, 3. Further we have opa Spare, (SXe-n-ere = cave(te) (cp. 
§ 64, 2), Mt. 9. 30 Spare fxrjSels yti/cixr/cerco, 24. 6 o/oaYe /mrj OpoeioSe 
(Buttm. p. 209), and accordingly Spare (/3X.) [rq with conjunctive in 
Mt., Mc, Lc is also apparently to be regarded as an instance of 
asyndeton, Mt. 24. 4 fiXeirere p? rts vpds irXavrjo-r), although in 
passages like Col. 2. 8 J3X. fi-q ns co-rat, A. 13. 40, H. 12. 25 the /r^ 
subordinates the following clause no less than it does in f^Xeirera) fir) 
TTea-rj 1 C. 10. 12. On d<pes with conj. see § 64, 2. Not far removed 

from these instances is o-uo-rra 7re<£t/zaxro Mc. 4. 39 (or. /cat <ptjJL(i>0rjrL D). 

The corresponding use of asyndeton with indicatives is limited to 
eyevero with a finite verb, § 77, 6, and to the asyndeton after rovro 
in an explanation of the preceding clause (classical, Kiihner ii. 2 864) 
L. 3. 20 TTpoveOrjKe /cat rovro eirl 7racrtv, Karen. Xeicre K.r.X. (N*BD al.) ; 
a peculiar instance is 1 C. 4. 9 8okg> yap (on add. « C D C al.) 6 Oebs 
direSeL^ev, which should be compared with the insertion of 80/cetTe and 
pbaprvpco inf. 7.— Again, where we have to do with really distinct 
clauses and sentences, a distinction must be drawn between narrative 
style on the one hand, and didactic and homiletic (or conversational) 
style on the other. In narrative the connecting link is generally 
retained, at least by Mt., Mc and Lc, for John certainly shows a 
remarkable difference from them in this respect : thus in 1. 23 tyrj, 

26 direKpiOr], 29 rrj eiravptov fiXeirei, similarly in 35, 37 rjKovcrav (/cat 
r//c. K C ABC al.), 38 o-r panels (with Se K a ABC al.), 40 Ae'yet, 6 40 rjv 
(A al. fy Se), 41 evpivKei, 42 r\yayev (/cat r/y. AX al.) and epbfiXexpas 
avTw etc., beside which he uses the connecting particles ovv, Se, /cat. c 
These instances of asyndeton give the impression of ease, not so 
much of vividness or hurry on the part of the narrator. (Hermas 
has similar instances, e.g. Vis. iii. 10. 2 diroKpidelo-d /xot Aeyet, 9 
diroKpiQels avrfj Aeyw — air. /xot Aeyet, and again in 10, so that he uses 
asyndeton just in these formulas of narrated dialogue, where most 
of John's instances occur, and like John he is fond of using it with 
the historic present, Winer § 60, 1 ; he also uses it with fierd -iroXXd 
errj, p. xpovov nvd etc., Yis. i. 1. i ff., cp. supra 2 ad fin.)— In the 
didactic style of the Gospels asyndeton is very commonly found 
between the individual precepts and utterances, e.g. almost through- 
out the whole passage Mt. 5. 3-17, and not only where there is no 

a b c d v. App. p. 325. 


connection of thought, 1 but also in spite of such connection : ibid. 17 
firj vopLicrrjTe on rjXdov KaraXvcrat ...* ovk rjXSov KaraXvcrat k.t.X. (in- 
stead of ov yap), L. 6. 27 dyaTrare rovs ..., kgcAws Troielre tols ..., Trpocr- 

evxe(r6e irepl (29) tw tvtttovtl ..., Kal a7ro k.t./\. (from this point 

onwards there is more connection). John also frequently employs 
it: 3. 6 to. yeyevvrjpevov ..., 7 pr) OavfJido-rjs ..., 8 to Trvevp.a k.t.X. 
Here too the asyndeton is used with no rhetorical purpose, although 
it perhaps gives greater solemnity and weight to the discourse. The 
style of the exhortations and precepts in the Epistles is similar. 
But in the Epistles, especially the Pauline Epistles, we also find 
many instances, some of them brilliant instances, of rhetorical 
asyndeton, see § 82. 

5. New sections in doctrinal writings of some length usually have, 
as in classical works, some link to connect them with the preceding 
section, and this is at any rate essentially requisite in a work that 
lays claim to careful execution. On the other hand, the epistolary 
style is apt to make use of asyndeton, when a further subject is 
started, and there are moreover numerous instances in Paul 
and other writers where such a fresh start is made (l£ awo-rdo-eMs, 
i.e. 'with a break'), quite apart from the Epistle of James, 
which has the appearance of being a collection of aphorisms, 
and the first Epistle of John which is hardly less loosely put to- 
gether. In the Epistle to the Eomans there are connecting links 
till we reach 8. 16 avrb to TrvevpLa arvpfAapTvpei k.t.X., where one may 
very well speak of a figure of e£ a7roo-Tacrews ; the thought is so 
directly the outcome of the feeling (as also in 10. 1). The absence 
of a connecting link at the beginning of the second main section of 
the letter (9. 1), which is so distinct from the preceding section, may 
be surprising, but a mere conjunction would here be quite inadequate 
to produce a connection. In 1 Corinthians the e£ d7roo-rdo-eo)<s con- 
struction is profusely and effectively employed ; but new subjects 
are also sometimes introduced without a conjunction, as in 5. 9, 
6. 1, 12, but in 7. 1, 25, 8. 1, 12. 1, 16. 1 we have irepl 8e, in 15. 1 
yvupifa Be, etc. In the Epistle to the Hebrews the connection of 
sections is regularly preserved, except in the hortatory sections 
which are not connected with one another. 

6. The other class of construction, the compact or periodic, has 
never been entirely wanting in any form of Greek literature ; it is 
found for instance where the first-mentioned part of the thought 
defines the time of what follows, and this statement of time is not 
given in a few words (such as lv eKelvais tolls rj/mepaLs), but at such 
length that a pause is required after it; thus we have a clause 
standing first which though it stands by itself gives a broken and 
incomplete meaning, and must therefore be succeeded by a second 
clause to complete the sense. This style is also found where the 
first part of the sentence is a condition etc., or where the subject of 

1 In this case Attic writers also employ asyndeton in admonitions, Isocrates 
R. i. ii. iii. : cp. his statement on this subject in xv. 67 f. 


the sentence which is placed at the beginning is expanded by means 
of attributive words into a separate clause ; there is a weaker, 
but still a true, connection of clauses, where two members of an 
antithesis, or a disjunction, or a parallelism, are set side by side, and 
the link between the first member and the second is expressed by a 
particle such as /xei/, rj, tc or i<ai Even a particle is not absolutely 
necessary to produce connection, so that we may even speak of 
periods where asyndeton is used, as in 1 C. 7. 27 SkSeo-ac ywatKi- fxrj 
^qrei Xvariv kekvcrcu dbro yvvatKos' /Jirj (jqrei yvvaiKa y =el fxev SeSecrac . . . 
d 81 XeXvo-ai, cp. § 82, 8. We, it is true, are accustomed only to 
speak of a periodic style, where the number of clauses which com- 
bine to form a single unit and which only receive their full meaning 
from the last of them is far in excess of two, and we consequently 
fail to discover a periodic style in the N.T., since as a matter of fact 
there are not many sentences of this kind to be found in it. We have 
indeed the preface to Luke's Gospel, L. 1. 1-4 kirzi8v)ir€.p woXXol iwex^- 

prjcrav | dvard^aorOat SLrjyrjtrLV irepl tcjv 7re7rXr}pocj)opr}fjL€vu)V kv tj/lllv irpay- 
fjbdroiv I Ka9a (sic D) rrapeSocrav rjfJLiv ol dw dp)(rjs avroiTTat kol virriperai 
yevo/Jbevoi rov Xoyov | eSo^e Kapol TrciprjKoXovOriKOTi dvoiOev iracriv aKpif3te$ 
I KaOeffis crofc ypd\j/<xi Kpdno-Te GeocfaXe | tVa kiriyvtys 7repl (5v Karrj^qdrjs 
Xoycov rrjv dcrfidXecavj where, if the sentence is divided as above, and 
regard is had to the appropriate length of the clauses, erring neither 
on the side of excessive length or brevity, a beautiful relation is seen 
to exist between the protasis with its three clauses and the apodosis 
with its corresponding structure. Since iroXXol is answered by 
k&[jlo1 9 and dvar. SirjyrjcrLv by ypdxpai, and the KaOa clause by tVa 
kiriyvQ>s k.t.X., we see that the last clause, which is appended to a 
sentence already complete, is at least demanded by the correspond- 
ence which prevails throughout the whole passage. The same 
writer, however, in the rest of his G-ospel has by no means taken 
the trouble to construct artistic periods, and his second work, 
the Acts, does not even open with a tolerably well-constructed 
sentence ; the only similar period to be found besides in that author 
occurs at the beginning of the Apostolic letter, A. 15. 24 ff. The 
artificially-constructed sentence at the beginning of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews is of a different character. ILoXv^epm kcu 7roXvTpo7r(x)s 

7rdXai 6 Oebs XaXrjo~a<; rots Trarpdcriv kv rots 7rpo<pr]Tais | kir ko-\drov 

tw rj/jLepiov Tovrtav eXdXrjarev rjfjLiv kv via) (this according to ancient 
ideas is a complete period with two clauses or members, to which 
some looser clauses are then directly appended): ov eOrjKev KXrjpovo/jLov 
iravTuv [ St' ov roll tovs alcovas iiroL^crev (with a rhetorical anaphoric use 
of the relative with asyndeton, § 82, 5 ; as in the subsequent passage) 
05 &v aTravyacrfJLa rfjs 86£rjs /cat yapaKTr)p Trjs v7roardo-€(i>s avrov ] <j>kpct)V re 
rd irdvra ra> prj fiart rrjs Swdfjcews avrov | 81 eavrov Ka0apio-ix6v7roiiqo~dp.evo^ 
tcov dfxapTiQiV rjfxojv * | kKaOto-ev kv 8e£i& rfjs peyaXojo-vv7]S kv v\pr)Xots 
(a period with four clauses) | rocrovro) Kpeirrmv yevofievos riov dyye\m> | 
ocro) 8ta<f>op(oTepov Trap 1 avrovs KeKXrjpovofJLrjKev ovofia (an appended 
period consisting of two clauses connected by roo-ovro) . . . 6'0-w). 
The rest of the Epistle is composed in a similarly fluent and 
beautiful rhetorical style, and the whole work must, especially 

^n the text see Stud. u. Krit., 1902, 422 f. 


with regard to the composition of words and sentences, be reckoned 
as a piece of artistic prose, cp.§82,2,3. Paul, on the other hand, 
generally does not take the trouble which is required for so careful 
a style, and hence it happens that in spite of all his eloquence artistic 
periods are not to be looked for in his writings, while harsh paren- 
theses and anacolutha abound. 

7. In the case of a parenthesis the direct course of a sentence is 
interrupted by a subordinate idea being inserted into the middle of 
it. We also freely make use of parentheses in writing, but prevent 
the irregularity of the construction from interfering with the intel- 
ligibility of the passage by enclosing the interruption within brackets 
or dashes, unless indeed we throw the clause, which might be a 
parenthesis, into a foot-note. The need of a parenthesis usually 
arises from the fact that some idea or thought which occurs in the 
sentence necessitates a pause, such for instance as the introduction of 
a foreign word which requires explanation. In that case a sentence, 
which should strictly be closely joined together, is divided in two ; 
this is done either in such a way that the whole construction still 
preserves its unity, as in Mt. 27. $2> et 's -•• FoXyoOd, 6 eanv Kpaviov 
T07TOS 1 , or else the insertion entirely destroys the structure of the 
sentence (anacoluthon), or again after the insertion, which is 
expressed as an independent clause, the writer returns to the original 
construction. In this last case we have a parenthesis. An instance 
of it is Mt. 24. 15 f. orau l8t]T€ to ff&tXvypia ... (6 &va-yivwo-Ko>v vocitcd), 
Tore ol k.t.X. Or again an accessory but indispensable thought 
cannot be brought into line with the construction which has 
already been begun, and is thrown into the sentence just as it 
arises, e.g. in A. 12. 3 TrpocreOeTO orvXXafieiv /cat IleTpov — rjo-av 8e at 
fjfjLepai rwv d£vfJLO)V — 8v /cat 7rtacras k'OeTO els <f)vXaKrjV y where it would 
have been possible to bind the sentence more closely together by 
saying 7repl avrds rds rjfJLepas tols ra>v dtjufuov /cat Uerpov crvXXa/3ojv ets 
<j>vXaKY]v k'Oero ; but that would be the artistic style, not the style of 
the New Testament. Cp. 1. 15, 4. 13, (§ 77, 12). The parenthesis 
in A. 5. 14 fidXXov Se irpocrertOevTo k.t.X. is harsh; it is true that the 
sentence runs smoothly on from 13, but the return to the main sen- 
tence after the parenthesis is awkwardly executed ; the clause wWc 
/cat ets r<xs 7rAaT€tas k.t.X. in reality expresses a result not of verse 14 
but of 1 3, though it looks as if the former were the case. But many 
of the worst instances of this sort occur in the Pauline Epistles. If 
the thread of St. Paul's thought, when considered as a whole and in 
larger sections, includes many lengthy digressions (Win. § 62, 4), it 
is not to be wondered at that in smaller matters also the connection 
of clauses suffers in the same way. A parallel passage to A. 5. 14 is 

1 If an explanatory clause of this kind is inserted into the report of a direct 
speech, of which it can form no part, it must certainly be enclosed in brackets, 
in spite of the fact that the construction is not broken by it. Thus Mc. 7. 1 1 
eav etirri ... Kopj3dv (o eenv dwpov), Jo. 1. 39. (It is different if a scholium of this 
kind is appended to a direct speech, as in Jo. 9. 7, 1. 42 etc., Winer § 62, 2 


R. 1. 13 on 7ro\\aKis 7rpoe6efjL7]v kXOeiv 7rpbs vpids, kol kKwXvOyv axP 1 
tov Sevpo, tva riva Kapirbv cr^w kcu kv vplv, where the tva clause IS to 
be joined with irpoeOkpLyv. As here there is a lacuna in the thought 
between the words Sevpo and tva, so there appears to be in 2. 15 f. 
between aTroXoyov/ieviav and kv y y^'epa, so that perhaps we should 
assume that in the latter passage there is a parenthesis ; but it is not 
till a long way back in the sentence that one reaches a point, to which 
kv y k.t.X. may be logically joined, and it is the present writer's 
conviction that, instead of trying to explain the inexplicable, one 
must follow the guidance of Marcion, 1 and simply remove kv y 
wkpa or kv rjfi. rj (A) or kv yfi. ore (kD etc.), thus producing an 
asyndeton : — rj /cat WTroXoyov}ievbiv. Kpivei 6 debs t<x Kpvirra tcov 
dv0p(o7ro)v (the things to which the Karyyopelv and diroXoyeio-Ocu refer). 
But these details are matters for the editor and commentator to discuss 
as they severally arise. Another grammatical point to note is that, 
as in class. Gk., a finite verb is occasionally inserted in the middle of 
the construction (which there would be no point in isolating from 
the rest of the sentence by marks of parenthesis, and to do so might 
even give a wrong meaning) : L. 13. 24 iroXXol, Xkyio v/jllv, ^yryo-ovo-iv 
k.t.X. ('I tell you 7 ), 2 C. 8. 3 6Vt Kara SvvafXLV, jxapTvpw, kol irapa 
Svvafuv k.t.X., H. 10. 29 TTocrio 8ok€it€ yttpovos a^tw^creTat Tl/Atopta* 

(Herm. Sim. ix. 28. 8 ri 8ok€lt€ iroiyo-ei), in all which passages it 
would be very easy to work the word into the construction; classical 
writers however have the same construction in numerous passages 
with otSa, 6 pas, otfjLOLL etc., Kiihner ii. 2 873 f. (Aristoph. Ach. 12 7rws 
tout' ecreto-e pbov 8oi<eis ttjv KapSiav ;). To this category belong the 
Pauline phrases /caTo, dvOp^irov Aeya> R,. 3 5, kv d^pocrvvy Aeya> 2 C. 
11. 21, m TeKvoLs Xeyo) 6. 13, which are epidiorthoses and prodi- 
orthoses expressed in the concisest way. But the insertion of <£ao-tv, 
e<py etc. does not come under this head, as this is only a case of displace- 
ment in the position of the word in the sentence : 2 0. 10. 10 6Vt at 
€7rto-ToAat pkv <|>a<ri.v ^apelai ( = 6Vt cjxwiV "At p.\v " k.t.X.), Mt. 14. 8, 
A. 23. 35 etc. a Also proper names and temporal statements placed 
in the nominative in defiance of the construction (§ 33, 2) are not 
parenthetical, because they form an essential part of the main 
thought, and occur in their right place in the sentence. 

8. Anacoluthon is due to a failure in carrying out the originally 
intended structure of the sentence ; since the continuation and 
sequence do not correspond with what has gone before. In artistic 
prose instances of anacoluthon must generally be reckoned as 
blemishes, although they are not entirely wanting even in the prose 
of Isocrates ; on the other hand its occurrence in writings where 
there is an imitation of a natural conversational tone, as in the cases 
where Plato has it, is quite justified, and it may therefore be con- 
sidered justifiable in epistolary style as well, so long as it does not 
interfere with the understanding of the passage, though this limita- 
tion certainly seems not unfrequently to be transgressed by St. Paul 

1 v. App. p. 333. a v. App. p. 325. 


Of the very various forms of anacoluthon I give the first place to a 
peculiar instance, which appears in the simplest periods, consisting 
of two members or clauses (sup. 6). Mt. 12. 36 nav pyjfxa dpybv o XaXij- 

vovctlv ot av0p(OTTOL | diroSwcrovu-tv irepl avrov Xoyov, 7. 24, 10. 32,* Jo. 6. 
39, 1 1 7. 2, L. 1 2. 48, 2 C. 1 2. 1 7 jurj nva &v dirkcrraXKa irpbs v/xas | 6V avrov 
€7rX€ovzKT7]<ra vfias; In these instances, formed on a Hebr. model, the two 
halves of the sentence had to be placed in opposition to each other, with 
a pause between them and a reference in the second half back to the 
first, and a certain weightiness is given to the style by treating each 
part of the sentence independently, instead of writing for instance 
oo~a av prjfxara dpya XaXyjoriooriv, irepl irdvnav (rovruv) diroSwcrovo-LV 
X6yov. a In the passage from St. Paul nva is obviously occasioned by 
dirka-raXKa ; with this is compared 1 Jo. 2. 27 /ecu vfiets rb xpfof 10 ' o 
ZXdftere air avrov | /xevet ev {^tv, where the pronoun occurs in both 
members, and in the first is to be taken with iXd/Sere, whereas the 
passage might have run without anacoluthon kcu kv vjjllv rb xp- o eX. 
d. a. {jl€V€l. A similar case occurs ibid. 24 vptecs o rjKovcrare drf dp\rjs 
( iv /x€V6T0) 2 (/xevct or /*€V€TO) by itself was not sufficient to make 
a clause, and the contrast between beginning and continuance 
required to be sharply expressed). Other instances of anacoluthon 
of this or a kindred sort are: A. 7. 40 6 MwiV^s ovros, os..., ovk 
mSapcev ri iykvero avrcx) (O.T. Ex. 32. i), 3 Jo. 7. 38 6 mcrrevayv els e/xe 
. < . 7rorajuLol €K rrjs KOiXias avrov pevo-ovcriv k.t.A. 4 , Mc. 9. 20 Kal ISojv 
avrov, rb irvevfia o-vvecnrdpa^ev avrov (instead of o-vveo-TrapdxOrj vwb rov 
irv.), A. 19. 34 irnyvovres 8e on 'lovdalos io-rcv, <f>(ovr) iykvero pia Ik 
7rdvro)v (instead of i/36-qo-av ofLov 7ravT€?, which would not conveniently 
suit the following words). A very awkward instance occurs in Ap. 
2. 26 and 3. 12, 21 6 vlkiov, 6Ww avrio ; on the other hand in 2. 7, 17 
we have r<J vik&vti, Scoo-co avry, cp. 6. 4, Mt. 4. 16 O.T., 5. 40 (the 
pronoun referring back to the preceding clause, § 48, 2). Herm. 
Mand. iv. 5 is like an instance of nominative absolute of the old sort 
(§ 74, 5), dpL<p6repa ra irvevpiara iiri rb avrb KaroiKOvvra, do-vpufropov 
icrnv . . . J/cetVo) iv <S KarotKovcnv. 

9. Another kind of anacoluthon is found in sentences of greater 
length, where the interruption of the original construction by inter- 
vening sentences causes that construction to be forgotten, so that in 
the mind of the writer another is substituted for it. Thus A. 24. 6 

1 Here we find IV a irdv 8 dedcoK&s /ulol, /xt? aTroXicrco i% avrov, dWa dvaarifjcrco avrb 
K.T.X., with Trds ... fir) for ovdeis, § 47, 9, though here no doubt the negative 
looks on to the second positive half of the sentence, Buttmann p. 106, as in Jo. 
v>. 16. According to Buttm. 325 the irav in all these instances is nominative 
(' nominative absolute,' cp. § 74, 4) ; as it also is according to him in Jo. 15. 2 
rrdv K\rjfia iv ifxol jultj cpepov Kapirov, a'lpei (better dpei with it. vulg. and then 
Kadapiei, see p. 54) avrb. 

2 Therefore this is not a case of the subject being thrown forward before the 
relative (§ 80, 4), whereas 1 C. 11. 14 dvrjp fiev idv KOjua, drtfiia airy iartv k.t.X. 
may be so explained, as = ihv /uev dvrjp. 

3 In L. 21. 6 there is no reference in the second clause to the ravra d, and we 
should probably follow D in omitting a. 

^ 4 Herm. Mand. vii. 5 r&v Be jj,t) <pv\ao-<r6vrwv ... (the genitive is due to assimila- 
tion with the preceding antithetical clause), ovde fay ianv iv avrols. 
* v. App. p. 333. « v. App. p. 325. 

284 CONNECTION OF SENTENCES. [§ 79. 9-10. 

(in the speech of Tertullus, which is transmitted by Luke with 
greater negligence than any other), evpovres yap rov avopa tovtov 
Xoifxov . . ., os kcu . . ., ov Kal iKparijcrafjLev k.t. A,.; this ov /cat, which is occa- 
sioned by os Kal preceding, should have been dropped, in order to make 
the period run correctly, whereas the writer here continues as though 
he had begun with evpopev. The narrative portions of the N.T. do 
not contain many anacolutha of this kind : the passage Jo. 6. 22-24 
has been transmitted with too much variation in the MSS. for us to 
be able clearly to recognize the hand of the author ; according to the 
usual reading the rfj kiravpiov 6 ox^os at the beginning is taken up 
again in 24 with otc o£v etdev 6 6xX-os, in a manner that is not 
unknown in classical writers, where there would be no question of 
forgetfulness ; cp. 1 Jo. 1. 1-3." But the Pauline Epistles (though not 
all to the same extent, as the care with which they were written 
varied considerably) contain numerous and more flagrant instances. 
In Gr. 2. 6 cx7ro 8e twv SokovvtojV etvai tl ... oVoiot 7tot€ fjcrav, ov8ev jjlol 
8ia<f>ep€L' TTpocroynrov debs avOpwirov ov \afxf3dv6i ... epiol yap oi Sokovvtcs 
ovSkv TTpcxraveOevro, instead of e/zot ovSev irpocr averk Or), the author may 
either have forgotten his opening clause or else considered it con- 
venient to repeat it in a new form. At all events the passage is 
easily understood 1 ; but just before in 4 8id Se tot)? Trapeto-aKTovs 
\j/€v$a8e\cjx)vs ... ols (ouSe) irpbs co'yoav et^afxev k.t.X., it is by no means 
easy to say what was the drift of St. Paul's thought in the opening 
clause, unless, as the present writer in fact believes, the oh 
(which is omitted in D* and Irenaeus) is spurious. 2 In many 
cases defective transmission or criticism of the text is certainly 
to blame : in E. 2. 17 ff. an obvious remedy is by adopting 
the reading ISe for el 8e (which can hardly be called a variant : 
€ IAE - IAE, ide -ide) to change what appears to be a protasis with- 
out a correct apodosis into a principal clause. 36 But in 1 Tim. 1. 3 ff. 
the construction which began with KaOm irapeKaXeo-d ore k.t. A. through 
innumerable insertions and appended clauses is unmistakably reduced 
to utter confusion. 

10. Frequent instances of anacoluthon are occasioned in St. Paul 
by the free use of the participle, which he is fond of using, and some- 
times in a long series of clauses, instead of a finite verb. Thus 2 C. 
7. 5 ovSefjLtav ecry^/cev dveviv r) cnxp£ rjfiujv, dW ev iravrl 0\t(3<5p.€vot* 
eguOev imx a h ^o-o)0ev <f>6/3oL, where one may no doubt supply eoyzer in 
the first clause as elo-lv in the second, though this does not do away 
with the harshness and the want of accurate sequence in the passage. 
Similarly in 5. 12 ov ... o-vvicrrdvofjiev ..., d\\' d(f>opfxr)v 8l86vt€S (sc. 
ypdcf>ojJLev Tavra). So ibid. 8. 18 ff. orvveire/JLif/apLev 8e rov d8e\<f>bv ..., ov 

1 Belser (die Selbstvertheidigung des. P. im Gal. br., Freiburg im Br. 1896,. 
p. 69) says with regard to the attempt (of Spitta and others) to give a uniform 
construction to this sentence : ' A philologist, who with a sane mind proceeds 
to expound the verse, cannot ovde irpbs &pav be in doubt as to the perverseness 
of the undertaking.' 

2 In any case in R. 16. 27 $ should be removed (with B), not only because of the 
anacoluthon, but especially in order to give 5ia 'I. Xp. its proper connection. 

3 Cp. G. 5. 2 tde ey<b UavXos \eyu k.t.X., Wilke, d. neutest. Rhetorik (Dresden,, 
1843), p. 215 f . , who, it is true, decides conclusively in favour of et dk 

a b v. App. p. 326. 


6 €7ratvo<s . . . Bid 7racra)V tw eKKXrjaccov, ov jjlovov Sk, dXXa /ecu xapoTovrjOels 
(instead of €X €l P 0T0V V@v) virb twv I/c/cA^o-icoi/ owckS^os rj/mCjv crvv 

rff X&pLTC T7) StaKOVOVfJievr) Vcj) fjfJLiJjV, <rT€\Ao|A€VOl TOVTOy fJLY] rts rjfias 

fiodfxrjo-rjTaL k.t.A., where crreAA. is closely connected not so much with 
o-vveTrefixj/afxev (i.e. sent with Timothy), as with (tvv€k§7){ios fjficov etc., 
so that it is an undoubted case of anacoluthon, the participle stand- 
ing for o-reXXofieOa ydp. In E. 5. 21 there is no direct anacoluthon, 
but vTrorao-croiievoi has not the same closer connection with the last 
finite verb irXrfpovcrOe 18, which AaAotWes etc. 19, and evxaptcrrovvres 
20 have ; the style is the same as in R. 12. 9 if, where in the exhor- 
tations (after the style has already been entirely broken up in 6 ff., 
cp. § 78, 2) participles (or adjectives) are appended to each other in 
an unending series, with no possibility of bringing them into any 
construction. Thus in the opening verse 9 fj dydirrj dwiroKpiros 
interrupts the remarks about what the Romans should be, individu- 
ally (8) or collectively ; after the interruption, however, he continues 
with a-irovTvyovvT^ ... (fciXocnopyoi etc. up to StwKovres 13; then in 
14 f. there is a fresh interruption of clauses in the imperative or 
infinitive ; in 1 6 we again have participles <f>povovvres etc. and again 
an imperative yivecrOe, in 17 ff. there is a continuation of the series 
of participles ; it looks as though St. Paul regarded the descriptive 
participle (whether eWe is mentally supplied or not) as completely 
equivalent to the imperative. Cp. further E. 4. 20 irapaKaXQ vjjlols 
7T€pi7raT7J<rai ... a.v€\6\L€voi dXXrjXcov ... <nrovSd£ovr€S (cp. 2 P. 3. 3), 3. 18, 
Col. 3. 16 f. 6 Aoyos evoiKetTw . . . StSdo-Kovres k.t A., where the participle 
follows upon imperatives and is equivalent to them as in Eom. loc. cit.; 
but there is a similar anacoluthon in 2 C. 9. 1 1 7rXovrt(6/jLevoL after an 
assertion in the future tense, in 13 &o£d£ovres k t. A. there is an extension 
of the preceding Bid ttoXX'2v evxapiariiov tw 6eQ> (the subject of the 
part, being the recipients of the benefit), cp. 1 . 7 ; participles are used 
without anacoluthon, but in a very long series in 2 C. 6. 3-10. The 
constant element in all these instances is the nominative of the parti- 
ciple, which is therefore essentially connected with this free use. Cp. 
Aeywv, XkyovTes § 30, 6. The reverse use is occasionally found, namely 
the use of a finite verb in place of a participle . Col. 1. 26 to fjLvo-rrjpLov 
to dTTOKeKpyjufievov ..., vvvl